Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

EAST SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

WILTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL [Lords]

PORT OF LONDON BILL [Lords]

WESTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) SEWERAGE BOARD BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered, to be read the Third time.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

European Economic Community

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to meet the National Farmers' Union to discuss recent developments in the European Economic Community negotiations.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): The United Kingdom farmers' unions are kept fully informed of the progress and prospects of the negotiations with the European Economic Community. My agricultural colleagues and I have had a joint meeting with the unions and are always ready to discuss problems.

Mr. Eadie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nothing happening now in the E.E.C. negotiations is inspiring confidence amongst farmers? Is he also aware that in Scotland opposition to our joining the E.E.C. is gaining considerable ground?

Mr. Prior: I think I can say that I am in closer touch with farmers than the hon. Gentleman is, and I believe that a considerable number of farmers are looking forward to the prospects that European entry will bring to them.

Mr. Peter Mills: Does the Minister agree that many sections of British agriculture will find it extremely profitable to go into Europe, and that entry will allow us first and foremost to take a much larger share in home production?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir; I fully support that view. I believe that the interests of British agriculture would be well looked after within the Common Market. I see no reason at all why British farmers should not do extremely well against their European competitors.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister aware of the remarks made by Mr. Inverarity, the Chairman of the Scottish National Farmers' Union, in which he expressed concern about the hill sector in particular? Will the right hon. Gentleman


repeat the assurances given by the previous Government that the hill sector and the uplands would be the subject of special negotiations?

Mr. Prior: Yes, certainly. The hill sector and the uplands are the subject of special negotiations, and these negotiations have still to take place. I fully recognise the worries to which the hon. Gentleman and Mr. Inverarity have drawn attention.

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of the European Economic Community fisheries policy on the British fishing industry in the event of the United Kingdom's joining the Common Market.

Mr. McNamara: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the effect of the European Economic Community fishing policy on the British fishing industry in the event of Great Britain joining the Common Market.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will specify the advantages to the British fishing industry of joining the Common Market.

Mr. Prior: It is too early to make an overall assessment of how the common fisheries policy will affect our fishing industry. Various detailed provisions of that policy have yet to be settled, and much would depend on the terms of entry negotiated.

Mr. Moyle: On the contrary, is not this one of the areas where the price of British entry can be calculated with some precision, since the Common Market has adopted its fisheries policy and has refused to alter it in spite of all the representations of Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Prior: Not necessarily, because this is what the negotiations are about. We are well aware of the problems and the representations made by the inshore fishing industry, and these will be taken into account in the negotiations.

Mr. McNamara: What the Minister said when last we raised the question was that the British Government had reserved their position. Can we know more pre-

cisely what is the position we are reserving? Are we reserving our position regarding the inshore fleet, or the prospect of the accession of Norway to the Common Market and its effect on our deep-water fleet?

Mr. Prior: This is a much wider question, but the British Trawlers Federation is not worried about the accession of Norway, and would like very much to have access to Norway's fishing grounds. This shows exactly how complicated the whole common fisheries policy is and how we had better not come to any rash decisions before we have completed the negotiations.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Will the Minister say whether the E.E.C. countries have any inshore waters comparable to our own? Is he aware that because of the shortage of herrings everywhere else in Europe, our herrings find a very profitable export market in E.E.C. at the moment?

Mr. Prior: As far as I know, there would be no comparable inshore waters. Again, this must be a matter for negotiation, and the conservation interests must be properly looked after. I recognise that there is a good export of herrings. I only wish there were more boats available to catch them off the East Coast.

Mr. James Johnson: Is the Minister taking my Question No. 14 with this Question?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Could the Minister say whether on this important subject he is having consultations with the unions representing the fishermen in connection with entry into E.E.C., as he is having with the N.F.U. in connection with agriculture?

Mr. Prior: We have not had consultations with the unions. We have had consultations so far with the British Trawlers Federation and with the sea fisheries committees, which I myself have met, but if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the unions would like consultations in this respect, we will, of course, have consultations with them too.

Mr. Nott: Surely the point is that the Six have gone ahead and settled the major points of their fishing policy at a time


when Norway and Great Britain are negotiating for entry. Is the Minister aware of the seriousness of this matter? It may not be an important point in the negotiations generally but is very important when it comes to a vote being taken in this House on the Common Market?

Mr. Prior: Yes, I am well aware of the importance of this issue and of the very strong feelings aroused. I am equally aware that the Six went ahead with the common fisheries policy at a time when Norway and ourselves were seeking to join. I can assure the House and my hon. Friend that we made very strong representations to them at that time and suggested to them that it would be far better if they waited before they took such action until we were members of the Community. They have gone ahead and are now seeing how strong the feeling is.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has had from the fishing industry, in particular the British Trawlerowners Federation, regarding the impact of the European Economic Community fisheries policy upon their future activity, in the event of Her Majesty's Government joining the Common Market.

Mr. Sillars: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has had from commercial fishing interests and inshore fishermen about the effects of the new European Economic Community fishing policy on British fishing interests; what replies he has sent; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what communications he has had from the distant water and inshore sections of the fishing industry about the effect of adhering to the European Economic Community fisheries policy; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Prior: I am in close contact with all sectors of the fishing industry in England and Wales. Some have made formal representations; some have not. But all have explained their various concerns,

which I have assured them we shall take into account in the entry negotiations.

Mr. Johnson: Will the Minister bear in mind when he answers my question that he is the Member of Parliament for a famous and important fishing port? Since formerly he has acted as an arch-dissembler of information with his answers in this House, why will not he be as blunt and as honest as I know that he can be and fight for our fishing industry, as his counterpart in the Norwegian Government is doing at the moment, with the Common Market?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman need have no fear. I shall fight for the interests of the country as well as those of my constituency and the fishing industry.

Mr. Sillars: Would the Minister agree that it is essential for us to have a final fallback point in the negotiations about access to our waters? Can he say what in his view that final fall-back point should be in relation to the protection afforded to our inshore fishermen by the 12-mile limit?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman has little experience of negotiations if he imagines that I would disclose my fallback position in advance.

Mr. Wall: In spite of the objections from Norway and from this country to which my right hon. Friend has referred, the Six have reached agreement on access to each other's fishing grounds up to the beach, which could spell ruination to the inshore industry. Is he aware that this is one of the issues which may cause Members to vote against the Common Market when the time comes?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir, I am well aware of the feeling of individual Members of Parliament representing fishing constituencies on issues of this nature. That is why I gave what I thought were forthcoming answers to the earlier series of Questions.

Mr. Body: Would my right hon. Friend assure us that he will not overlook the interests of the shellfish industry?

Mr. Prior: That is exactly the same question, and the answer is: yes, we will not overlook them.

Mr. Deakins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that the European Economic Community's existing arrangements will be adequate, in the circumstances of an enlarged Community, to ensure stability in the market for pigs and pigmeat; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Prior: This is a matter which has been thoroughly discussed with the Community, which has accepted our views on the importance and characteristics of the bacon market and the need for keeping the situation under careful review, and has recognised the desirability of stability for pigmeat. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not consider further action is required at this stage.

Mr. Deakins: Is the Minister aware that in Western Europe the pig population is expanding and that in the absence of production controls under the common agricultural policy, it is likely that we shall be joining the Common Market at the peak of the pig cycle without any safeguards for our own producers in the sense that flexible market arrangements will have been abolished by that time?

Mr. Prior: The matter is not quite so simple. The common agricultural policy for pig and pigmeat includes intervention arrangements. I think that these will help to create stability. We are not joining the Common Market tomorrow, and there will be a very long transitional period if and when we do.

Mr. Deakins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what present functions of the Milk Marketing Board will have to be abolished if the United Kingdom enters the European Economic Community.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): If the United Kingdom were a member of the European Economic Community, support for the milk producer would be given not through a guaranteed price but through the Community's system of intervention and threshold prices. The Milk Marketing Board would, therefore, cease to implement our present guarantee. I should expect the Board's major marketing functions on behalf of its members to continue.

Mr. Deakins: Is it not a fact that the pooling arrangements for transport costs of milk producers in this country will be incompatible with the provisions of the Treaty of Rome relating to free competition, and that the abolition of those pooling arrangements for transport costs will hit at milk production in the remoter areas of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Stodart: I do not think that that necessarily follows. The milk-producing organisations of the Community are at present free to send milk wherever they like to get the best return for members and to pay them as they wish.

Mr. Biffen: If Britain were a member of the Community, would Continental, particularly Dutch, dairy fanners be able to supply the London liquid milk market or would the powers foreseen for the Milk Marketing Board prevent this eventuality?

Mr. Stodart: This is a matter for negotiation.

Turkeys and Chickens (Prices)

Mr. John: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current price per pound of turkeys and chickens, respectively; and what was the price of such poultry per pound in December, 1969.

Mr. Prior: On 16th December, 1969, the average retail price per lb. of a 3 lb. frozen chicken was 3s. 3d. On 20th October, the latest date for which information is available, it was 3s. 5d. Information on turkey prices is not available.

Mr. John: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to estimate the expected price rise per lb. of turkeys and chickens prior to Christmas?

Mr. Prior: It is very dangerous to make estimates of that nature. There is a serious situation of fowl pest in the country, which will not help Christmas prices. Ample supplies will be available but at a slightly higher price than last year.

Mr. Evelyn King: Is the Minister aware that in Dorset, and no doubt elsewhere, birds reared in hatcheries are now dying by the thousands following electricity cuts, and if the cuts go on they will die by the tens of thousands? Does


the Minister know whether strikers and go-slowers accept responsibility for their cruelty and also for the increased food prices which certainly must follow?

Mr. Prior: I am aware of the serious position of hatcheries and other parts of the agriculture and food industry. The whole nation will be best served when the electricity workers go back to work.

Indian Ocean (Fisheries Research)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research is being financed by his Department into fisheries in the Indian Ocean.

Mr. Prior: None, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: Would it not be wiser to spend a little money on research rather than spend £120 million on Indian Ocean bases?

Mr. Prior: That is a totally different question from the one on the Order Paper.

Wild Life Preservation

Mr. Hardy: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to give greater official support to efforts to preserve hedgerows and to leave areas of land in a condition which will encourage the survival and preservation of wild life.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: The importance of conservation is emphasised in many of the information and advisory activities of my Department and in the training of those responsible for them.

Mr. Hardy: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that more urgency appears to be necessary in approaching this problem, particularly in view of the fact that many thousands of miles of hedgerow have been removed in recent years, after perhaps quite unnecessarily?

Mr. Stodart: I deplore many instances of hedgerow removal. In fact, I believe that there is a case on an efficiency argument for pulling out some hedges, but I feel that it has been overdone. I am glad to be able to say that the peak has been passed.

Bread (Price)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the price of bread was last increased and by how much; what was the length of time between that request for an increase in price and its application; and if he will make a statement on the present position.

Mr. Prior: Leading plant bakers informed me that they were increasing the price of all loaves by 1d. from 30th November. As for the remainder of the hon. Member's question, I would refer him to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) on 2nd November.—[Vol. 805, c. 284.]

Mr. Pavitt: Has the right hon. Gentleman examined the way in which the Labour Government were able to take action to hold back increases in the price of bread for some months? Would he not now do something other than rely on competition, which hardly exists in the bakery trade?

Mr. Prior: There were seven increases in the six years in which the Labour Government were responsible for our affairs, including two increases in January and April this year. It is not perhaps without some importance, and is a commentary on the previous Government's activities, that within two months of the new Government having been appointed, the trade was back again for a third increase. It applied for an increase in price—

Mr. Heffer: Where is your competition?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Prior: It has made it perfectly plain that the price it was after was a 2d. increase in August and got 1d., rounded down to less than 1d. when decimalisation comes in, in November.

Mr. Heffer: What is the right hon Gentleman doing about it?

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten that his party gave clear assurance that prices would be held down and brought down? Is he aware that before the increases that


were referred to under the Labour Government, I referred an application for increase to the National Board for Prices and Incomes? Could he say what scrutiny has taken place in his Department to satisfy himself that the recent increases were justified?

Mr. Prior: It is not my job to scrutinise, and I have no intention of becoming involved in scrutinies of that type. The fact is that on two occasions this year, in spite of reports by the National Board for Prices and Incomes, the price of bread went up under the previous Administration.

Badgers

Mr. Hardy: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice is given by his Department to those engaged in agriculture as to the treatment of badgers.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: Since badgers are not pests, I see no occasion for advising anybody about how to treat them.

Mr. Hardy: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the badger is a useful rather than harmful animal, and would he publicise this view, making it clear that the only inconvenience the badger causes is to the fox hunters?

Mr. Stodart: I would go a very long way with the hon. Gentleman. The badger does very little damage. It occasionally, but unusually, kills poultry, and it occasionally rolls among corn, but since I was brought up on "The Wind in the Willows" I have always been of the firm belief that generally the badger is a benevolent animal.

Beer (Alcoholic Content)

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will seek powers to require the brewing industry to disclose the alcoholic content of its beers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: The issue is not one of powers but whether such regulations would be in the public interest. This has not been established.

Dr. Gilbert: How much longer is the Minister going to be so tender towards his friends in the brewing industry?

An Hon. Member: For as long as they keep contributing to the Tory Party.

Dr. Gilbert: Could the hon. Gentleman say what other forms of food and drink are exempt from labelling requirements to tell people what is contained in them?

Mr. Stodart: I should have thought that it was of great importance that labels put on commodities should be accurate, as some beers go on fermenting both in cask and in bottle long after they have been brewed, I would think that it is valueless to put this information on the bottle.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to technical problems, there are also psychological objections to the proposal?

Mr. Siodart: All I am concerned about is the practicability of this suggestion.

Home-killed Beef and Lamb (Prices)

Mr. Wellbeloved: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the effect of the autumn supplementary Price Review on the wholesale price of home-killed beef and lamb.

Mr. Prior: In general, the recent increases in guaranteed prices have not had any discernible effect on wholesale prices. Wholesale prices of home produced beef and lamb have fallen slightly since the beginning of October, which reflects the usual seasonal movement at this time of the year.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Does not the Minister agree that the guaranted price is a much better way of keeping low-price meat available to British housewives than an imposition, for the first time in British history, of a meat tax which the Government intend to impose upon the housewives' meat?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman has not done his homework, but there is nothing unusual about that. If the British farmer is to have a fair chance of expanding his production, he will have to have a greater amount of money from the market. There is no other answer, unless we are prepared to put up with the stagnation of British agriculture which


we had under the previous Administration.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Can the Minister explain why, whilst the wholesale price of beef has gone down, the retail price has gone up? Is that the effect of competition?

Mr. Prior: No, Sir. Retail prices have been very steady over the last few weeks, and the position with regard to the retail price of meat is exactly the same now as it was under the previous Administration.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: How would the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) identify the Meat and Livestock Commission's levy on meat, introduced by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, if it is not a tax?

Mr. Prior: Apart from the levy of the Meat and Livestock Commission, there is no levy on meat at the moment. Therefore, there is no question of prices having risen as a result.

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the highly unsatisfactory nature of those answers, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Transportation of Calves (Cruelty)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take to prevent cruelty in the transportation of calves to the Continent by sea and in their subsequent slaughter.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: The Balfour assurances were designed to ensure adequate welfare standards for animals exported from this country for immediate slaughter. I am making available in the Library now copies of a statement which gives the result of inquiries made by my Department about a recent export of calves to Belgium, and which I will with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. My right hon. Friend is considering whether any change in our existing policy is required.

Mr. Turton: Can my hon. Friend be a bit more explicit about the report that he is placing in the Library? Is he aware of evidence that there has been considerable flouting of the Balfour assurances

recently in the export of calves to Belgium and that the whole country wishes the Government to take action to stop this very cruel trade?

Mr. Stodart: That is precisely why the report is being circulated. It is of some length, and it was felt that it would be more to the convenience of the House if it was not given at the end of Questions in view of various other statements which are to be made. The answers for which my right hon. Friend asks are to be found in the report.

Mr. Spriggs: At what points is the welfare of these animals checked to see whether cruelty is taking place?

Mr. Stodart: The animals go out of the control of the British Government once they are landed at the port of disembarkation on the other side. They are there checked by our own authorities.

Following is the information:

Export of Calves

Statement by Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in reply to Parliamentary Question from Mr. Turton (Thirsk and Malton).

The main allegations about the welfare of calves recently exported to Belgium were that some were underweight for the journey and, in some cases, had been re-exported; and that, contrary to the Balfour agreement, others had travelled further than 100 kilometres from the point of disembarkation and were slaughtered inhumanely.

The allegation that calves are leaving Britain underweight is a domestic matter which is still being investigated. I shall take any action justified by the investigation.

The allegation about the distance travelled in Belgium by animals exported for immediate slaughter has been substantiated and the Belgian authorities have assured us of their intention to see that the Balfour limit is effectively enforced in future.

The allegation about cruelty in the slaughter of calves at a particular slaughterhouse in Belgium has been denied, and is still under investigation by the Belgian authorities. Belgian law governing the slaughter of animals is no less stringent than ours. It requires that animals at slaughter must be stunned (electrically or by captive bolt pistol) or anaesthetised and it makes provision for the welfare of animals awaiting slaughter. On general hygiene grounds the Belgian authorities have in the meantime withdrawn their approval of this slaughterhouse.

Belgian arrangements also prohibit the reexport of slaughter animals imported from Britain. The Balfour Assurances do not place any restriction on the re-export of animals imported for further fattening, and the calves


to which the allegation about re-export related were in this category.

I should like to place on record that throughout our enquiries we have received the fullest co-operation from the Belgian authorities.

Calves and Fowls

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he proposes to introduce regulations under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act governing the level of iron in calf-foods and prohibiting the use of blinkers and the practice of beak-trimming on domestic fowls.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: We propose to introduce the iron regulation when the necessary scientific inquiries have been completed. We have no proposals for prohibiting blinkers or beak trimming.

Mr. Turton: As the recent report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee said that, from the ethical standpoint, regulations regarding both beak trimming and spectacles were very important, will my hon. Friend reconsider his decision?

Mr. Stodart: The Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee advised the phasing out of blinkers. Their use is declining, and the State Veterinary Service survey states that no pain or distress occurs if they are properly applied. Beak trimming causes little trouble to birds. The method used is covered by regulations, and again the State Veterinary Service found no pain or distress.

Fruit Industry

Mr. John Wells: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his future policy on the top fruit industry.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: Our present and future policy is to encourage the industry to maintain and improve its efficiency in the growing and marketing of fruit, and to strengthen its ability to withstand competition through the merits of its produce.

Mr. Wells: When does the Minister anticipate being in a position to make a statement about his future policy on grants to encourage grubbing up and to enable the British acreage to be so reduced that that which remains will be able to compete fairly, whether or not we enter Europe?

Mr. Stodart: Before very long, Sir.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In view of the recent very unfortunate decision about apple import quotas for the first six months of 1971, will my hon. Friend say what can be done to prune the Board of Trade?

Mr. Stodart: I understand that that is in the past, and that the Board of Trade has been exterminated, not pruned.

Forestry Commission

Mr. John Wells: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the activities of the Forestry Commission.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: My right hon. Friend and his right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales are jointly responsible for the activities of the Forestry Commission. They intend to give close attention to various aspects of forestry policy over the coming months, including in particular the return on the public money invested in forestry.

Mr. Wells: Can my right hon. Friend press the Leader of the House to find time for a proper debate on this subject, especially as we have less timber production than almost any other European country and the use of paper and paper products is rising continually?

Mr. Stodart: There is an import-saving potential in forestry grown in this country. I will certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend's views.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his remarks may cause some disquiet, particularly in Scotland, where forestry provides an important source of employment in areas where other employment is difficult? Will he resist any suggestions from the Treasury that the investment return on capital employed should be increased?

Mr. Stodart: Questions on forestry in Scotland should be directed to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office.

Earl of Dalkeith: Does my hon. Friend agree that as we are more desperately


and dangerously over-dependent on timber imports than any other country, there is every need to give the Forestry Commission and the private sector of forestry every encouragement to continue the steady expansion of afforestation?

Mr. Stodart: With that I agree.

Fowl Pest

Sir H. Harrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now report on the results of the experiments with live vaccine for fowl pest; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: The field trial with live vaccine is progressing satisfactorily, but it is too early yet to draw worthwhile conclusions about its effectiveness.

Sir H. Harrison: Does my hon. Friend realise how urgent this problem is? A large number of those engaged in the fattening industry feel that the use of live vaccine is the only way for the future of the industry, which gives such a large amount of meat to this country. Will my hon. Friend be as quick as possible in his conclusions?

Mr. Stodart: I entirely accept the concern and anxiety within the industry in the middle of this terrible scourge of fowl pest which is raging at the moment. We hope to have the conclusions of these tests in about 10 days.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: In view of the continuing gravity of this epidemic, may I ask the hon. Gentleman and the Minister to consider the advisability of setting up an independent inquiry into its causes and effects and into the advisability of using live vaccine, because I understand that the use of live vaccine is an acceptance that the disease has become endemic in the country?

Mr. Stodart: I am prepared to examine the right hon. Gentleman's idea and do anything which will help to ensure that we are not afflicted in this way again.

British Standard Time

Mr. David James: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further representations he has received from farmers concerning the

abolition of British Standard Time; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: No further representations have been received since the decision so wisely taken by the House on 2nd December, but that decision has, of course, been generally welcomed by the farming community.

Mr. David James: I had, of course, tabled this Question before I knew the date of the debate. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many hon. Members on both sides of the House regard it as necessary only for G.M.T. to run from mid-November until mid-February to meet the farmers' point of view? If my hon. Friend finds that this point has general acceptance among fanners, may I ask him to make his own representations to the Home Secretary?

Mr. Stodart: I think that it is extremely unlikely that practically any point will find general acceptance among many farmers.

Mr. Mackie: Will the hon. Gentleman press the Home Secretary to have the time changed back at, say, the New Year so that people will realise what they are missing next year?

Mr. Stodart: I am afraid that for once I must strongly disagree with one who has been my faithful pair for many years.

Agricultural Units

Mr. David James: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to increase the number of viable agricultural units, in view of the effect on existing agricultural units of present rates of estate duty liability.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: We are reviewing the farm structure schemes to see whether we can give more effective help for the creation of viable units. This review will take account of all relevant factors, including any effects of estate duty.

Mr. James: In view of the entirely frivolous answer given to my last supplementary question, may I ask the Minister to answer this one seriously? Will the Minister bear in mind that, owing to the change in the value of money, death duties on farms have increased at such a rate that, while the


Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food wants to sell larger viable units, the Treasury is doing everything that it can to eliminate those that exist?

Mr. Stodart: I certainly appreciate that there is a conflict here between encouraging amalgamation and carrying out a taxation policy which tends to mean fragmentation at the end. This matter is being discussed between my right hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Booth.

Mr. Peter Mills: On a point of Order. Mr. Speaker, have I lost my Question No. 24?

Mr. Speaker: I thought that it had been answered with another Question. I am sorry. Mr. Peter Mills.

Tractor Safety Cabs

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further discussions he has now had with the Tractor Manufacturers' Association with regard to tractor safety cabs; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: In the absence of any indication from the tractor manufacturers that they would be willing to allow buyers of new tractors a free choice between any approved make of safety cab or frame, I see no useful purpose in holding further discussions with them. They are well aware of my view and that of my right hon. Friend that this freedom of choice is in the best interests both of safety and of competition. As I said previously in reply to my hon. Friend, consideration is being given to amending the regulations concerned.—[Vol. 806, c. 1025–6.]

Mr. Mills: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it not particularly unfortunate and regrettable that at this time of rising costs British agriculture should be penalised by some tractor manufacturers? Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole matter leaves a very unpleasant smell?

Mr. Stodart: We must keep safety in the forefront of the argument. That, to my mind, is of great importance. I deplore practices which discourage farmers buying new tractors, thus thwarting our efforts to improve safety measures.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Whilst I accept absolutely the safety point, is this not another case of the Government's competition policy going wrong?

Mr. Stodart: No, Sir; it is not, because there is a good deal of competition between makes.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF SEAGRAM LIMITED

Mr. Booth: asked the Attorney-General whether he will institute proceedings against the House of Seagram Limited for the offer made to Mr. B. G. Williams, to make French francs available in France against a sterling payment in the United Kingdom, in contravention of the Exchange Control Act, 1947.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): No, Sir; there are no grounds for proceedings.

Mr. Booth: Have any investigations been made to ascertain whether offers similar to that made to my constituent in this case have been made to other individuals? If so, have any steps been taken to prevent this practice, which is obviously an inducement to engage in a breach of the Exchange Control Regulations?

The Attorney-General: I have no knowledge of any similar offers. I might point out to the hon. Gentleman that mere intention does not in itself constitute an offence. The arrangements here were made by persons who have accepted that they should not have made such an offer, and they did it in error. In the circumstances, there really are no grounds on which to proceed.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEGAL AID (SOCIAL WELFARE BENEFIT TRIBUNALS)

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Attorney-General if he will introduce legal aid for all applicants appearing before tribunals concerned with social welfare benefits.

The Attorney-General: The extension of legal aid to further tribunals will be considered in the light of research into the need for legal assistance in that field.

Mr. Archer: Even in advance of the research, would not the Attorney-General agree that those who appear before these tribunals are confronted by a mass of regulations at least as confusing as those which confront them in the civil courts, and they are no better able to make provision for this? How would the right hon. and learned Gentleman distinguish between the two situations?

The Attorney-General: As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, it was in 1968 that the Legal Aid Advisory Committee recommended that legal aid should not be extended save to the lands tribunal. The committee has expressed the hope that there will be further research, and there is now the possibility of this being done through the Nuffield Foundation, which has allocated £150,000 for this purpose. In those circumstances, I think that we should await the results of that inquiry.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that substantial financial sums may be involved in these proceedings, that very often extremely difficult legal issues arise in them, and that frequently there is a need to cross-examine expert witnesses? Will he consider sympathetically the extension of legal aid to National Insurance Tribunals?

The Attorney-General: I appreciate that there are often difficulties. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, difficult legal points may arise. The Legal Aid Advisory Committee and the Council on Tribunals have called for further research and, as there is a body prepared to do it, I think that it would be right to await the results of that research.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRST OFFENDERS

Mr. George Cunningham: asked the Attorney-General what is his policy in his consultations with magistrates on sentencing first offenders on the imposition of heavy fines, payable over a period of months, as opposed to suspended prison sentences when discretion is permitted by law.

The Attorney-General: I do not consult with magistrates on the sentences they impose. Magistrates have a complete discretion, within the limits laid down by Parliament, to pass such

sentences as they think fit. It would not be proper for me or for any Minister to attempt to direct them how to exercise their discretion.

Mr. Cunningham: I recognise that there is consultation between the Lord Chancellor and magistrates on sentencing practice, but does not the Attorney-General think that the practice of imposing suspended prison sentences without an accompanying fine for many first offenders encourages the first offender to think that society takes his offences lightly, and in the end increases the prison population, which the policy was intended to reduce?

The Attorney-General: That is the hon. Gentleman's point of view, but I must repeat that although magistrates get an opportunity for training, for study, and for visits, and also conferences at which they may be addressed by the Lord Chief Justice or the Lord Chancellor, the exercise of their powers must be and must remain, solely a matter for them.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Is not there some ground for fearing that some magistrates' courts are imposing terms of suspended sentences instead of making probation orders, so that when an offence is committed within the period of the suspended sentence prison follows, with the result that the operation of the suspended sentence scheme may be the opposite of what was intended. Is not there room for an inquiry into this matter?

The Attorney-General: I would not suggest that there is room for an inquiry. I am sure that benches will if there is a chance, read what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. There are difficulties which magistrates encounter. One of the most difficult things is this matter of sentencing. It is a very important part of their task. They are given these facilities, they have these conferences, and I hope that they will apply their minds to exercising their powers properly and appropriately.

Oral Answers to Questions — MESSRS. HESKETH, KING AND BEECH, MANCHESTER

Mr. Rose: asked the Attorney-General whether he will instigate proceedings for conspiracy to defraud, electoral fraud, fraud, assault, action likely


to cause a breach of the peace, insulting and threatening behaviour, etc., under the Firearms Act and the Race Relations Act, 1965, against Messrs. Hesketh, King and Beech of Manchester, in view of the evidence supplied to him by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley.

The Attorney-General: Investigations into these matters are proceeding.

Mr. Rose: It would be wrong to comment on the criminal aspects of this matter now, but will the Attorney-General bear in mind that the activities of these people, both in trying to prevent local democracy and in damaging race and community relations in Manchester, are giving grave concern to many people in the Manchester area?

The Attorney-General: I am going to say nothing save that the investigations are proceeding.

Oral Answers to Questions — WILLS

Mr. Awdry: asked the Attorney-General whether he will take steps to prevent the publication of wills of deceased persons.

The Attorney-General: No, Sir. Although there are arguments on both sides, my noble Friend and I do not consider that the case for changing the law in that way is made out.

Mr. Awdry: Will my right hon. and learned Friend look at this again? Many people think that this confidential information should not be published as this is an invasion of privacy.

The Attorney-General: That is one point of view, as expressed by my hon. Friend. Nevertheless, there is a very important and, in my view, overriding public interest, and that is the possibility of abuse if wills are not published. In those circumstances, my reply is that we have no plans for introducing legislation on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Prime Minister whether he will discuss with President Nixon during his visit to the United States of America the position of

Greece in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): The details of the discussions I shall be having with the President are confidential.

Mr. Fraser: Will the Prime Minister urge the President to cease the supply of arms to Greece, which he has recently resumed, and remind him of the terms of the N.A.T.O. Treaty, the purpose of which is to preserve individual liberty, democracy and the rule of law? Finally, will he remind him that this is important on both sides of the Iron Curtain?

The Prime Minister: The question of Greece's military position is one for the N.A.T.O. Alliance and for the Americans in so far as their own supply of arms is concerned. Our views in wishing Greece to return to democratic processes are well known. There is no need for me to tell the President that.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH (GUILDHALL)

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech at the Guildhall on Government policies on 16th November, 1970.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on Government policies at the Guildhall on 16th November.

Mr. Sillars: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on Government policies at the Lord Mayor's Guildhall Banquet on 16th November.

The Prime Minister: I did so on 18th November.

Mr. Fraser: Can the Prime Minister say why he was so shy, especially among an audience of businessmen, about spelling out how he would reduce the rise in private sector prices? If he could not do it on that occasion before so many business men, when will he do it, and how quickly?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will do me the honour of


reading the speech instead of asking for it when it is there, he will see that I dealt with that specifically at the end of the speech.

Mr. Davidson: In that speech, which I have read carefully, the Prime Minister laid great stress on the fact that the Government's strategy was a long-term one. Does the Prime Minister not feel that he should have made the same sort of remark to housewives before the general Election and told them that his strategy for cutting prices was a long-term one and not an immediate one?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman reads our manifesto in addition to the speech, he will see that the second sentence says that this is a programme for a Parliament.

Mr. Sillars: Is the Prime Minister aware that in his policy speeches he keeps neglecting to mention the value-added tax? I am asking the right hon. Gentleman politely to confirm this afternoon the pledge in the Tory Party manifesto that any value-added tax introduced by the Government will not apply to food.

The Prime Minister: There are no proposals at the moment before the House for a value-added tax.

Mr. Thorpe: I, too, have read the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Can he tell us that he left the Guildhall with some confidence having convinced all his hearers that he would be able to contain wage inflation at a stroke?

The Prime Minister: I received a very warm reception at the Guildhall, which gave me great satisfaction.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on Government policy at the Guildhall on 16th November, 1970.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to a Question by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) earlier today.

Mr. Sheldon: Yes, but in that speech -the Prime Minister talked a lot about incentives and the need for incentives. Has he considered the lack of incentive that the Family Income Supplement Bill now provides for many of those with low

incomes because a number of these people will be losing more than 1s. of benefits received for each 1s. of income earned? Has he considered that loss of incentive, or are incentives only for the well-off?

The Prime Minister: Not at all. If the hon. Gentleman studies the figures which have been made available, he will see that they are scaled so as to avoid that as much as possible. But everyone who has had to deal with the details of working out a policy for family poverty knows exactly how difficult it is to avoid this situation.

Mr. Marquand: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place a copy of his speech on Government policy at the Guildhall on 16th November, 1970, in the Library.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to a Question by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) earlier today.

Mr. Marquand: One of the things that the Prime Minister failed to do in the Guildhall speech was to make it clear, as he has also failed to do in the House, just how important he regards the control of the money supply as a means of combating inflation. Can he now explain to what extent the Government are relying on this as a weapon for dealing with inflation, to what extent he agrees with the commentators who think that this must be a central weapon of Government policy, and to what extent he agrees with people like Sir Eric Roll, who warned that the use of money supply as a method of controlling inflation can work only by increasing unemployment and bankruptcies?

The Prime Minister: I said in the Guildhall speech that the control of the money supply is one element—an important element, but only one element—in the number of weapons that one has to use against inflation. Sir Eric Roll was making a perfectly valid point, that if one carries the money supply argument to extreme lengths one may well damage the economy beyond recall. I would not question that for a moment. But it is difficult to quantify merely one particular element which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared the whole time to use flexibly.

Mr. Tapsell: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity yet of reading the very important lecture which the Governor of the Bank of England delivered yesterday, in which he particularly stressed that, important as the money supply was for controlling the economy, undue reliance on it would not produce the desired results?

The Prime Minister: That supports my statement that it is an important element but only one element of an economic policy.

Dr. Gilbert: In view of the Government's increasing reliance on monetary policy, would the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Bank of England last asked, formally or informally, for permission to raise the Bank Rate?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows, as does the whole House, that all the discussions between the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are confidential.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Would my right hon. Friend accept that it would be of even greater advantage if he laid in the Library a copy of the speech that he made this weekend, and even greater advantage if right hon. and hon. Members opposite read it, since unless we can deal with the situation of industrial chaos, which they are doing nothing to discourage, there is no hope of dealing with inflation or anything else?

The Prime Minister: I appreciate my hon. Friend's remarks, but it must be said, in fairness to the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues, that they have made their position about today's demonstrations absolutely clear.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is the Prime Minister aware that unless he alters the philosophy embodied in, or the policies flowing from, that Guildhall speech, he will go down in history as Robin Hood in reverse, because whereas Robin Hood robbed the rich and gave their money to the poor, the right hon. Gentleman is robbing the poor and giving their money to the rich? [Interruption.] He will never live that down.

Mr. Awdry: As the Government's policy is designed to change the rules of industrial relations and as the power

workers are working to rule and are bringing chaos and misery to the people, is it not about time that we changed those rules?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right, and the country is now realising that the action which is being taken today is causing not only inconvenience but also grave hardship to individuals—[Interruption.]—by causing disruption to industry, and is liable to cause danger to health not only for people in hospital but for people in their own homes. I would have thought that there was no room for difference in any quarter of the House about the results of this action.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The whole House will join with the right hon. Gentleman in wanting to see a return to normal working as quickly as possible. However, is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that part of his difficulty stems from the fact that this work to rule is taking place in the electricity industry because his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity will not allow his conciliation officers to work at all, rules or no rules? Is he aware, in view of what he has just said about industrial relations legislation, that it is at least highly arguable whether the action which is now going on in the electricity industry in regard to negotiations for a new contract would be in any way affected by the Government's Bill?

The Prime Minister: I understand that meetings have already been held between both sides in this dispute at the Department of Employment and Productivity; and, of course, as is well known to both sides, arbitration is available to them.

Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman is doing it again. He will not answer the question.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES (TRADE)

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if, on his forthcoming visit to the United States of America, he will discuss with President Nixon the future of Great Britain's trade relations with the United States of America.

The Prime Minister: Yes. Sir.

Mr. Marten: As it seems difficult to visualise that the Government will ever get what my right hon. Friend called in his Paris speech the wholehearted support of the British people for entering the Common Market, will he assure us that, in the best interests of this country, he will discuss our trading relations with America on the dual basis of if we do get into and if we do not get into the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: Obviously, one cannot give details of a conversation that is to take place, but as far as trade matters generally are concerned I should wish to discuss with the President the present position on trading relations between our two countries, and what would be the implications of entry into the E.E.C.

Mr. Ford: Will the Prime Minister convey to the President the great apprehensions of the wool textile industry and the disquiet at the recent restrictive Act which has been passed in the United States?

The Prime Minister: The Government have made representations to the American Administration about this matter on a number of occasions, and very forcefully.

Sir G. de Freitas: asked the Prime Minister whether during his visit to President Nixon he will discuss protectionism in the United States, especially as it affects British manufactures such as footwear.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the right hon. Member to the replies I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten).

Sir G. de Freitas: Apart from the problems of any particular export industry, will the Prime Minister remind the President that it was the United States tariffs which contributed directly to the world depression of the 'thirties?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the President very well recognises that, because his whole approach since coming to office has been to support liberal trade practices. I am sure from my own previous discussions with him that that is still his view.

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET CENTRAL CAPABILITY UNIT

Mr. Douglas: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Scot to the Central Capability Unit in the Cabinet Office.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) on 17th November.—[Vol. 806, c. 394.]

Mr. Douglas: Is the Prime Minister aware of the widespread criticism from all sections of the community in Scotland about the decision to alter I.D.C. policy? Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that Scotland's voice is heard in the higher echelons, bearing in mind that we are sick and tired of having a Secretary of State who loses Scotland's battles in the Cabinet?

The Prime Minister: I do not believe that the change in I.D.C. policy will affect Scotland for the worse, but it will make the administration of I.D.C.s generally better. But that really has nothing to do with the Central Capability Unit, and I think the hon. Gentleman will have to realise that under present legislation I should have to exercise great care in advertising for a Scot for a specific position.

Mr. Buchan: On the question of the Central Capability Unit, the right hon. Gentleman will remember that some of his friends were rather anxious about the appointment of a Labour Peer. Would he consider restoring the balance by appointing the chairman of the Tribune Group?

The Prime Minister: That is a matter of internal politics for the party opposite which has even got them mixed up.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARIS TALKS

Mr. Barnett: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the official talks he had with world leaders in Paris on 12th November.

The Prime Minister: I paid a brief courtesy call on President Pompidou.

Mr. Barnett: Referring to the right hon. Gentleman's other talks with the


O.E.C.D., he told us in the House last week that the forecast of O.E.C.D. that we are likely to be the poorest country in Europe in the next 10 years at the present rate was wrong. Did he tell O.E.C.D. the same thing, and did it, therefore, agree to revise its forecast?

The Prime Minister: The Question was about my visit to Paris to attend the memorial service for General de Gaulle and my discussions with President Pompidou. It has nothing to do with the O.E.C.D.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHAGOS ARCHIPELAGO (VISIT)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Dalyell: Are we building a £120 million base in the archipelago?

The Prime Minister: As I told the hon. Gentleman the other day, no facilities have been built in the British Indian Ocean Territory.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Yes, but last Thursday did not the Prime Minister, when asked whether the building of a base in the Indian Ocean was under consideration, avoid giving a clear answer? Will he give a clear answer now?

The Prime Minister: I have answered the Question which was put, that no facilities have been built in the British Indian Ocean Territory, and that the arrangement which was made under the agreement reached by the previous Administration with the United States in 1966 was that the whole of these territories would be kept under review by both Governments. That remains the position: there is no change in that.

Sir F. Bennett: Has my right hon. Friend been given any indication whether these questions suggest that the Opposition want a base in the archipelago as an alternative to Simonstown or in addition to it?

The Prime Minister: Having changed their Indian Ocean policy twice, if they

are changing it back again, that is welcome.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH-EAST LANCASHIRE (VISIT)

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to North-East Lancashire.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Davidson: Could the Prime Minister do me a little favour today? He will be aware that we are very concerned in North-East Lancashire about what exactly the Government's intentions are with regard to the building of the new town in Central Lancashire. Could he tell us today what his plans are in that respect?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir; I have no statement to make on that very important question today.

Oral Answers to Questions — POVERTY

Mr. Ashley: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination of Ministers whose policies affect poverty; and if he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission into the question of poverty.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; and I see no need for a Royal Commission.

Mr. Ashley: But since the Government's poverty policy is going backward to Speenhamland, should not the Prime Minister give a Royal Commission the opportunity of giving him considered advice before he pushes on with more divisive and doctrinaire measures?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir; I think that, through the family income supplement, we are the first Government to take direct action to help the poorer families. I believe this to be right. This is not divisive to society: it is a means by which the community helps those who are less well off.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Which Minister would have been responsible for referring the decision to cancel school milk in primary schools to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy? As the


right hon. Gentleman knows, that very much affects the question of child poverty.

The Prime Minister: All the questions affecting child poverty are to be coordinated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. At the moment, of course, we are in some respects in the interim stage, until these responsibilities are taken over specifically by the Department on 1st January. But he is responsible for the co-ordination.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Mackie: On a point of order. You will no doubt be aware, Mr. Speaker, that of the 56 Questions down to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food he has had time to answer only 21. As this is not good enough for an important industry of this kind, is there anything you can do to help us?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot distribute blame in such a matter. My only comment is that if supplementary questions and answers are long fewer Questions are asked.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY INDUSTRY (DISPUTE)

Mr. Sandys: Mr. Sandys (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the action being taken to minimise the dislocation caused by the electricity power cuts.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Davies): The interruption of electricity supplies yesterday and today follows the rejection by the four unions representing industrial staffs of the pay offer made to them by the Electricity Council last Thursday. In broad terms, this offer represented an increase of some 10 per cent. on the men's average earnings of over £25 per week.
Although the industry's procedural agreement provides for arbitration, the unions have not followed this procedure and have instead instituted industrial action which appears to be going well beyond the work-to-rule and overtime ban that they had announced.
The effect yesterday and today has been to reduce available capacity by 20 per cent. to 25 per cent., with the consequence that voltage has had to be reduced and many consumers disconnected for several hours at a time. The prospects for the future are uncertain.
The electricity authorities are doing everything they can to maintain supplies for priority users and to spread the remaining supplies as evenly as possible. However, it is clear that so long as industrial action continues interruptions of supplies, even to some essential consumers, are bound to occur.
In these circumstances, consumers can help themselves and the essential services by keeping their use of electricity to the minimum, particularly during the three peak periods of the day. The more this can be done, the less severe the cuts will be. The Government, for their part, are taking steps to see that the use of electricity by public authorities is reduced so far as is practicable.
I have also set up an operations room in my Department, manned 24 hours a day. This is ready to give guidance to public and local authorities, and industrial and other organisations, as well as to the public through the broadcasting system. [Interruption.] There is nothing laughable about this. This operations room will keep in close touch with the Electricity Council and boards, which have responsibility for hour-to-hour operational control and to which, in the first place, inquiries should be passed, though these should be kept to a minimum in the interest of essential users.
The balance of supplies and demand is changing all the time and this inevitably makes it difficult to warn consumers of what to expect. The electricity authorities are doing all they can to give advance warning whenever possible by the use of radio and television. But difficulties are bound to continue so long as the dispute goes on, and I accordingly urge the unions to end their action and return to the negotiating table.

Mr. Sandys: While welcoming the Government's firm resistance to inflationary wage demands, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether we are receiving any additional electric power through the cross-Channel cable from the Continent?

Mr. Davies: The answer is "No." The cable is not operating at present. I would stress, in any event, that the cable's total capacity is about 160 megawatts, compared with the 7,000 megawatts which we are currently losing.

Mr. Michael Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that we appreciate that there is nothing laughable about this dispute and that there is nothing laughable about the stubborn failure of the Government to try to intervene to settle it? Does he understand that what everyone in his senses in this country agrees is that we want the speediest possible settlement of the dispute, on honourable terms? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore answer the question which the Prime Minister refused to answer a few minutes ago; namely, what steps, if any, are being taken by the Department of Employment and its conciliation officers to try to bring the dispute to an end?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the workers in this industry have probably a finer record of increasing productivity than almost any other group of workers in Britain, and certainly this industry has a finer record in this respect than most other private sectors of industry? Does he agree, therefore, that it is especially deplorable that there should be such a refusal by the Government to intervene? Will he at least tell the House that in the coming days an attempt will be made to settle the dispute and that we will be spared any further inflammatory speeches from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and any other members of the Government?

Mr. Davies: I will answer the substantive points made by the hon. Gentleman. It is incorrect to say that the Government are quite unprepared to take any action in this matter. On the contrary, the Department of Employment has seen both sides in this dispute and is closely in touch with them. The Government will undoubtedly keep a close and continuous watch on the whole situation and take such action as is necessary. [Interruption.] When the hon. Gentleman attacks the Government so vehemently in this respect, he seems to ignore the fact that there is proper conciliatory machinery embodied in the negotiating

procedure which, up to date at least, the unions have steadfastly refused to utilise. It is in some ways normal to expect that they should first use the proper machinery, which is built into their procedure.

Mr. Michael Foot: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the unions have not used the proper procedure, is it not a fact that they have been negotiating in general about this claim for about 12 months? Is it not perfectly open to them, therefore—as it would be even under the legislation proposed by the Government—to take the action which they have taken? Is it not also perfectly open to the Government, if they so wished, to initiate at a stroke conciliation moves which could bring this dispute to an end this week?

Mr. Davies: I think that what the hon. Gentleman means is that it would be possible to resolve this dispute forthwith if once more there were an agreement to reach a grossly inflationary wage settlement, which does nothing but harm to the whole country.

Mr. Rost: Is it not true that this is not so much a work-to-rule as a deliberate attempt to disrupt the life and industry of the country? Is it not time for the public, who have been held to ransom for quite long enough, to demand that there should be a full return to work or that the Government should be allowed to use their emergency powers?

Mr. Davies: I am convinced that the public will make their own proper judgment of the situation with which they are now confronted. It is a situation in which a fair offer has been refused, the procedures of arbitration have not been accepted, and where there is the greatest dislocation to national life by people who—I readily accept what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said in this respect—have in the past shown a marked degree of responsibility and productivity. It is the more deplorable that they should be in this situation today.

Mr. Palmer: May I, as one who knows the industry well, put to the right hon. Gentleman three points which are intended to be helpful? First, has there not been an unfortunate lack of leadership and initiative on the part of the


electricity boards? Second, is it not a fact that it is quite impossible for troops to run 2,000 megawatt complex modern power stations? The statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about troops running them did not help at all. Third, should not the Government complete the process of negotiation, which has already been taken very far, by exercising the normal initiative which Governments exercise at times such as these?

Mr. Davies: I do not believe that it is reasonable to speak of a lack of leadership in an industry which has been so warmly complimented by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale on the subject of its productivity. Productivity is not achieved by a single side of industry.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer certainly never said that troops could take over and run the generating stations. It is not practical; my right hon. Friend and I know that.
In relation to the completion of the negotiating procedure, I have said again and again that there is provision within this procedure for this matter to be resolved in a proper and orderly way: at present it is the unions which are failing to do so.

Mr. Turton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the imposition of the cuts at milking times in rural areas is causing disproportionate hardship to the agricultural industry, endangering our food supplies, particularly milk, and causing great cruelty to the animals involved? Will my right hon. Friend request the electricity supply bodies so to arrange their cuts as to minimise the dislocation of the dairy industry?

Mr. Davies: The very unpredictability of the power cuts and the disconnections is of a kind as to make it virtually impossible to give adequate advance warning of what will happen. Moreover, as the power cuts become more severe the discretionary capacity of the boards to select those areas to which they direct current becomes progressively less effective. I believe I am right in saying that many of the users to whom reference has been made are equipped with stand-by plant, and I hope that to some degree this will be an alleviation.

Mr. Atkinson: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Minister for Industry said on 17th November that it was the Government's policy to make an offer once only and that never again would the offer be increased? Is this still the Government's policy, or are the Government likely to make another offer to those involved?

Mr. Davies: I stress that the Government are not the negotiating element in this matter. The negotiating element is the Council. The Council is, of course, in receipt of such guidance as the Government feel it correct to give. When it comes to making offers the ball is strictly in the Council's court.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is there any evidence anywhere that the Labour Party has recommended its trade union friends to use the conciliatory machinery, or is all that we have had on the record the inflammatory intervention by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and the almost hysterical apology on the B.B.C. News by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)?

Mr. Davies: If there has been such advice by members of the party opposite it has certainly escaped my attention.

Mr. Heffer: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) for what he said about me. Is the Secretary of State aware that the trade union involved in this dispute—

Mr. Orme: One of them.

Mr. Heffer: The main trade union involved—has one of the moderate, so-called responsible leaderships which hon. Members opposite are so fond of? Therefore, will he indicate to the House why such a responsible, moderate leadership finds itself in this position after one year of negotiation of having to take the action it is taking? Is it not an absolute scandal that the Government are refusing to bring in the arbitration machinery? Is this not a very clear indication that the Government are determined to take on the unions in a political battle at this time?

Mr. Davies: I have said nothing condemnatory of the union's general behaviour. I only regret that it has taken this misguided course. It is true, none the less, that this is an industry which


enjoyed a 10 per cent. increase last year, which has been offered a further 10 per cent. this year, and which has rejected it, to the grave disadvantage of the country as a whole. I reassert the fact that the arbitration procedure is within the hands of the union to exercise.

Mr. Pardoe: I fully endorse the Government's determination to stand up to inflationary wage increases, particularly in view of the effect that higher electricity charges will have on people whose incomes are substantially below those of most of the electricity workers. However, do the Government realise that an incomes policy that is confined to holding back public service incomes while allowing the private sector to go untrammelled lacks credibility and can only result in private wealth and public squalor?

Mr. Davies: The level of settlements in the course of the past six months does not bear out the hon. Gentleman's contention.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does the Secretary of State agree that, although it is certainly a matter of regret that electricity supplies have been interrupted, it would be even more deplorable if the Government gave up their efforts to contain a runaway inflation inherited from their predecessors?

Mr. Davies: Not only do I agree with that, but I most steadfastly believe that it is in the interests of every part of the country and of both sides of the House, certainly, to try to contain it.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Having regard to the history of this union in past years, of which the right hon. Gentleman will be aware and which must convey a warning at this time, is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this already inevitably difficult dispute has been embittered and aggravated by a certain number of recent speeches? An example is the speech which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made, even though we are glad that there was a lot of back-tracking over the weekend about what he meant; and the right hon. Gentleman confirmed that back-tracking.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware also that this dispute has been made much more difficult and bitter by the repeated indications given by a number of Minis-

ters that they were looking forward to this dispute because this would be the one which was the showdown? The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that this has been the systematic story put out. [An HON. MEMBER: "Unstatesmanlike."] It was very unstatesmanlike for Ministers to put this out; and the right hon. Gentleman cannot deny that they have done so.
In view of all that we have been able to read on this coming from Government sources, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm at least that it is the intention of the Secretary of State for Employment to consider setting up an industrial court? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if that were done everyone in the House would agree that there should be a resumption of normal working conditions?

Mr. Davies: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made some very telling speeches—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If shouting would solve this problem we could all shout.

Mr. Davies: My right hon. Friend has made some very telling speeches about the grave dangers we all run from the gross rate of inflation which we are suffering. I am very surprised to find that people should still be prepared to add fuel to those flames. As to looking forward to a dispute of this kind, I found it hard to believe my ears. The expression seems to me to be of the most utter mischief. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition also questioned the possibility of a court of inquiry or industrial court to look into these matters. This obviously is a matter which occupies our attention continually, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is certainly prepared to keep this under his own close watch.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the pay offices of the various electricity boards will also be working to rule?

Mr. Davies: I shall need notice of that question.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Is not the real weakness of the Government's position that having for four years refused to accept the idea of a maximum in incomes increases their present position in trying to impose one is utterly incongruous?

Mr. Davies: The Government have noted that over many years the Opposition when in Government regularly fixed maxima which were then automatically converted into minima.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of work ahead.

JUDICIARY, SENIOR OFFICERS OF ARMED FORCES AND PUBLIC SERVANTS (SALARIES)

The Prime Minister: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I have a statement to make on the salaries of the judiciary, of senior officers of the Armed Forces and of other public servants.
The Government announced on 7th August last that the final stage of the salary increases recommended in 1969 for the Higher Civil Service and for Chairmen, Deputy Chairmen and members of nationalised industry boards would be implemented from 1st January, 1971.
Following this announcement, members of the judiciary were given an assurance that Orders would be laid before Parliament to increase their salaries from the same date so as to bring them into a proper relationship with the new levels for Permanent Secretaries. Orders to give effect to this undertaking have been laid today.
Increases from 1st January, 1971, have also been recommended for senior officers of the Armed Forces in Report No. 157 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. The Government have accepted these recommendations. A number of advance copies of the Report are available in the Vote Office and others are being placed in the Library, but I regret that full distribution is being delayed until tomorrow by the strike.
I have to inform the House that senior members of all these four groups of public servants has said that they wish to follow an example set by the Lord Chief Justice, who has in the national interest offered to forgo the increase in his salary for six months until 1st July next. Members of the Higher Judiciary, Permanent Secretaries in the Civil Service and equivalent grades in the Diplomatic Service, and the Chairmen and Deputy

Chairmen of the major nationalised industry boards are also ready to forgo for six months the increases in salary due to them from 1st January, 1971. Because of differences in the amounts and timing of previous salary changes, the increases recommended for senior officers in the Armed Forces are substantially larger at this point of time than those for Permanent Secretaries, but the Chief of the Defence Staff and officers of the rank of Admiral, General and Air Chief Marshal, wish to make an equivalent gesture by forgoing for six months half the increases due to them under the National Board for Prices and Incomes Report.
I am sure that the House will welcome this public-spirited action.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that we on this side of the House wish to associate ourselves with the last sentence of what he has just said? Is he also aware that this is a very difficult problem and that the previous Government, following our announcement of what the amount should be, had decided to fix no date for its implementation because of the very difficulties which are no doubt now plaguing the right hon. Gentleman and that it would have been highly provocative to go on with the announcement on these questions which his Government rather rushed into in August when the House was not sitting? Is he aware that we welcome the fact that by the initiative of the four groups concerned the matter has been restored, at any rate for a further period, unlike the Government's announcement in August?
Having regard to the announcement on Friday in the debate on the Private Member's Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), how is it intended that in 'the future the salaries of these four groups will be reviewed from time to time? Will they be in a special panel, a single panel, or a series of panels of the new manpower organisation which has been announced, or has the right hon. Gentleman not yet finalised arrangements with them about the further review of salaries?

The Prime Minister: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman welcomed the action which has been taken in this case. The Government last July and August


did not rush into this decision. We gave full weight to the amount of time which had elapsed while the inquiry was being made into the salaries of the higher Civil Service and the Chairmen of the nationalised boards. In view of the staging which was arranged by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, we came to the conclusion that it would be right after a further period of six months to carry through the recommendations involved. At the same time there was the judiciary and the reference to the Prices and Incomes Board of the higher serving officers. The result is that some of those at lower levels have been able to receive the increases recommended and those who are senior have in the result made the proposal which we have accepted.
Future reviews will come under the group of review bodies being set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but no detailed arrangements have yet been made as to the particular review bodies before which they will appear.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Did I understand the Prime Minister to say "review bodies"? Are there to be a number of different panels under the new organisation, and will these also include the doctors?

The Prime Minister: They will include the doctors. There will be a number of review panels, but we have not yet settled the different review panels which will consider the situation of these four groups of public servants.

Mr. C. Pannell: Will the Prime Minister please consider the priorities in the submission to the new bodies of the various grades and interests concerned? Does he appreciate that Mr. Speaker is, I think, receiving less than his third Clerk, which seems rather ridiculous, and that Ministers bearing great responsibilities are getting much less than their Permanent Secretaries? Therefore, there is a general absurdity in the structure of the public services which needs looking at as a whole.

The Prime Minister: I am quite prepared to look at the point which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. I fully recognise the anomalies which still exist, despite the efforts which have been made over the past four years to rationalise

the situation so that those in comparable positions receive comparable salaries.

Mr. Ridsdale: While I fully understand the present position, will my right hon. Friend hurry on the review which is to take place for retirement pensioners? This section of the community is undoubtedly having to put up with severe hardship and will find it difficult to understand the position unless my right hon. Friend promises a review in the very near future.

The Prime Minister: That is not a subject with which I wish to deal today, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is well aware of the position.

Mr. Hooson: Whilst I join in the welcome given to the public spirit shown by the gentlemen concerned in agreeing to go without their salary increases for six months, does not the Prime Minister agree that such gestures are in no way a substitute for policies expected of a Government to control our economic situation? What is the significance of the six months' period until 1st July? Is it expected that our economic difficulties will be solved by then?

The Prime Minister: This was the proposal made by the Lord Chief Justice which has been followed through by four groups of civil servants. This is how the date came about. So far as their position is concerned, we must recognise that they themselves have been faced with a considerable lapse of time before the changes were made in their salaries. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to have a proper approach, then the review bodies will produce the answer.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Could the Prime Minister say what percentage increase is involved?

The Prime Minister: I cannot give an average increase—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] To begin with, it is pointless to try to average out the figures for judges, Permanent Secretaries, Chairmen of nationalised industries and senior serving officers. There is no point in trying to give an idea; each group should be looked at on its own. If the hon. Gentleman will study the report of the N.B.P.I. he will see the details for senior officers. All the details of the Permanent Secretaries were published when we made the announcement in August and before that


in the Report. In regard to judges, their position will equal that of Permanent Secretaries.

Mr. Loughlin: Although the House will be appreciative of the sacrifice that has been made, would the right hon. Gentleman supply us with the information as to the extent of the sacrifice, bearing in mind the commitments of the Inland Revenue? Will he relate this information to the sacrifice that has been made by the old-age pensioners in the light of increases in prices that have occurred since June?

The Prime Minister: In regard to the extent of the personal sacrifice, I can give the hon. Gentleman the broad changes which have already been announced in two instances. In regard to the Chairmen of nationalised boards the increase due to them in January is roughly £2,500 a year, for Permanent Secretaries £2,100, and for the judiciary, broadly speaking, £2,500 a year. In regard to senior serving officers, the proposal is roughly £3,000 a year, which is being halved because there was no second stage for those officers. Therefore, they have had a period of time without any increase, while permanent civil servants and some of the judiciary had previously had an increase.

Dame Irene Ward: Apart from the original statement made by my right hon. Friend, which everybody welcomes, would it not be wiser for us not to discuss salaries now? Would it not be wiser to have a full debate on all these matters when we have triumphed over the present disastrous strike by the electricity workers? I deprecate the time of the House being taken in this very difficult situation to discuss all sorts of details when we should be concentrating on getting rid of the economic problems and settling down to what I hope will be a more prosperous and happy future for everybody concerned.

The Prime Minister: That was the purpose of all the Government's actions, but I thought it right and appropriate, in view of the publication of the Prices and Incomes Board Report on the position of the judiciary and the offer made by the four groups of senior civil servants, that I should tell the House the situation.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is probably right in saying that it is difficult to give an average percentage figure for all these groups because there is no easy way of combining them? But he must know the figures for the separate groups. Would he therefore give the figures as percentages for each of the four groups? Since the Government are making such an issue of percentages at the moment, will he give an assurance that in no case is the percentage more than the 10 per cent. which has been laid down by the Government?

The Prime Minister: I think that remark completely indicates the false and irresponsible nature of the right hon. Gentleman's approach. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is dealing with the affairs of those public servants for whom he as Prime Minister only a short time ago was directly responsible. He is comparing one wage proposal made by the electricity industry of 10 per cent.—

Mr. Heffer: Answer the question.

The Prime Minister: —with awards which are being made to senior public servants which have had to be handled over a period of four years. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the electricity industry had an award of 10 per cent. last year, is now claiming 20 per cent. this year, which is completely unjustified, and has been offered 10 per cent. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Gentlemen must contain themselves.

Mr. Heffer: Answer the question.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Eric S. Heffer) is not going to be able to shout me down, because he is not now at a trade union meeting. The right hon. Gentleman therefore knows that the percentages are not comparable in any way at all. So far as the judiciary is concerned, the figure ranges, broadly speaking, from 25 per cent. downwards. [HON. MEMBERS: "Inflation."] This has had to be taken into account with what has been received during the past four years, because this is the period taken for all senior public servants. The same applies


to the senior officers. The percentage recommended there by the N.B.P.I. is from 33 per cent. downwards. Those are the figures that have been recommended and the senior members have offered to make this sacrifice, which I am glad to say the Leader of the Opposition has welcomed.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman must not lose his "cool" like this in the House. This is the House of Commons. He is not addressing a Commonwealth African leader. The right hon. Gentleman clearly misheard my question. I was referring to the figure of 10 per cent. announced by Ministers in public speeches long before the electricity dispute. We all know that if there has been an increase which has been deferred over a period such as two years one has to divide, roughly speaking, by two to find the annual rate. Since the right hon. Gentleman knows the percentages and knows the timing of past increases, would he now tell us the annual rate, which he must know, and say how this compares with the Government's stated figures of targets in the public sector?

The Prime Minister: The Government have stated no target figures for the public service. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There is no point in the Leader of the Opposition holding his hands to his head because it is not going to help his head. It is his head as well as his honour that needs some attention in this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] We knew full well what the right hon. Gentleman was doing in relation to the public servants.

Mr. Maclennan: On a point of order. It may be due to the noise at this end of the Chamber that we misheard the Prime Minister, but it sounded as though he had cast a reflection on the honour of the Leader of the Opposition. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman did refer specifically to my right hon. Friend's honour. If that is so, Mr. Speaker, is that not unparliamentary?

Mr. Speaker: Order. In the cut and thrust of debate I thought that the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition accepted what was said by the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman wants detailed percentages for each member of the judiciary, for each member of the higher Civil Service, for each member of the nationalised industry boards, and for the senior officers, I will certainly let him have them.

Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order I am concerned about involves the whole House. In the light of the Ruling you have just given, it appears that if an unparliamentary expression is used, then, providing the person to whom it is addressed accepts it, it ceases to be an unparliamentary expression. This is important in the light of the decision you have just given. Will you give a Ruling on it?

Mr. Speaker: I did not give a Ruling in the terms suggested by the hon. Gentleman—that if an unparliamentary expression is used the fact that the right hon. or hon. Member to whom it is directed is gracious enough not to take notice of it means that it becomes parliamentary. I took what was said as badinage between the two Front Benches.

Mr. Loughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to have to pursue this, but if an hon. Member questions the honour of another hon. Member, whether that Member is right hon. or hon., and if the modesty of the Member to whom it is addressed—[Interruption.]—I have sufficient respect for this House on issues of this kind to believe that this is important—if the attitude of the Member concerned compels him not to take offence when his honour is questioned, then surely it is implicit in your Ruling that the remark then ceases to be unparliamentary. Where do we go from here? It is a sad day for democracy when we get this sort of thing—[Interruption.]—it really is. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on a very serious point of order.

Mr. Loughlin: I want to be clear about this. Is it the case that when an unparliamentary remark is made, providing the person concerned does not take exception to it, it is not an unparliamentary remark? The honour of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was questioned and you accepted that because he did not take exception to it.


With all due respect to you, I submit that you should reconsider that Ruling.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite in order in asking what he has done. The fact that a right hon. Member or an hon. Member accepts an expression which the House deems unparliamentary does not automatically make that unparliamentary expression parliamentary. I did not think that the Prime Minister was impugning the honour of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I appeal to my hon. Friends to accept the guidance you have given? Having regard to the Prime Minister's record over the past five or six years in this direction, both before, during and since the General Election, any insults from him are a compliment to any decent Member of this House.

Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. At the outbreak of this little exchange, the Prime Minister contradicted the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry inasmuch as he implied that the Government would apply no pressure whatever on the electricity negotiators. That is in contradiction to what the Secretary of State has suggested. Because of the outburst, we may have misunderstood the Prime Minister. Do we understand that he was saying that the Government would apply no pressure whatever to those negotiating on behalf of the Electricity Council on wage rates for electricity workers?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order; it is trying to get an extra question. We must move on.

Mr. McBride: Is the Prime Minister aware that his announcement will breed a deep sense of resentment in the minds of retirement pensioners? Would he deem it opportune to bring in a Bill, in this season of good will, for the granting of an immediate and substantial rise for millions of retirement pensioners?

The Prime Minister: That point has already been raised by my hon. Friend and I have noted it.

Mr. Michael Foot: Just to clear up the whole matter and lower the temperature, would the Prime Minister give an

assurance to the House and the country that, on the panels which are to review the future salaries of top civil servants and the others he has referred to electricity workers will be represented?

The Prime Minister: The panels will not be dealing with questions relating to the nationalised industries and I do not think, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman's question arises. They will deal with the Chairmen but not with the sort of negotiations being carried out by the Electricity Council.

Mr. Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have heard completely contradictory statements from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Prime Minister. We should have a clear statement in relation to electricity supply workers, because they will draw their own conclusions from the devious answers which the Prime Minister has given to the House today.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The position is clear. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Government had issued a statement that there would be no wage increases above 10 per cent. and that this was the target. In reply to him I said that the Government had never at any time stated a target.

Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can the House take it that the Government have no ceiling and are, therefore, imposing no pressure whatever on those negotiating a wage settlement in the electricity supply industry?

Mr. Speaker: It is an interesting question but not a point of order.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Patrick Jenkin—statement.

STATIONERY OFFICE (PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS)

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Stationery Office.
As right hon. and hon. Members are aware, the printing union S.O.G.A.T. has called a strike of its members today involving last night's shift. This has made it impossible for the Stationery Office to provide normal Parliamentary papers for today. I regret, therefore, that we have not been able to supply copies of HANSARD, but steps have been taken to see that the House has the papers which are essential for the conduct of today's business.

Mr. Taverne: This situation is, in certain circumstances, inevitable. We are grateful to the servants of the House for the way in which they are carrying on their duties. Will publication be back to normal tomorrow?

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his comment. In answer to his question, I hope so.

Mr. David Steel: As this dispute was foreseeable, would the hon. Gentleman represent to the Leader of the House that Ministers should not make important policy announcements in Written Replies during disputes of this kind, such as was made yesterday on industrial development certificates?

Mr. Jenkin: No doubt my right hon. Friend has taken note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)

Ordered,
That this House at its rising on Friday, 18th December, do adjourn till Tuesday, 12th January.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

HARE COURSING (ABOLITION)

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make hare coursing matches illegal.
I very much regret having to bring in this Bill because I had hoped that it would be a Government Measure, but following the curt and peremptory reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) on 29th October to the effect that the Government would not be introducing legislation this Session, it seemed right and proper to my hon. Friends and myself that the House should again have an opportunity to reach a decision.
In the last Parliament there were three Private Members' Bills introduced. When the Government introduced their own Bill, it was passed on second Reading by no mean majority of 203 for and 70 against—a majority of nearly three to one. Unfortunately, there was a General Election.
My Bill will be short with one or two Clauses seeking to make hare coursing matches illegal. The report of the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals described coursing in the following way:
In competitive coursing one hare is pursued by two dogs, normally greyhounds which are matched one against the other. Points are awarded for skill and speed in turning the hare and it is not essential to the result of the course that the hare should be killed. If the hare is killed, the dog that brings it down is not necessarily the winne as it may not have exhibited as great a degree of skill as the other dog which at the critical moment may be behind.
No one supporting the Bill argues that the object of hare coursing is to kill hares, neither do those who support the sport, but regrettably it happens in a most brutal and barbaric fashion. The live hare becomes the subject of a tug-of-war between the two hounds. Its screams have been compared with the screams of a small child in great pain. Our previous debates are littered with examples and reports of the scenes, the barbarities and cruelties which take place.
Although the death of the hare is not the prime object of the course, people who indulge in this sport regard the death of the hare rather as the theologian


regards the Principles of Double Effect, the death is regarded as a side issue in the pursuit of a greater good.
Again, although the object of this sport is not necessarily to kill the hare, nevertheless the manner in which the death is accomplished may result in one dog being declared the winner as against another. Rule 24 of the National Coursing Club, the one dealing with the way in which points are awarded, reads:
The points of the course are:
(e) the kill. Two points or in a descending scale in proportion to the degree of merit"—
that is a lovely phrase—
displayed in the kill which may be of no value.
My object in introducing this Bill is not that of a city dweller attacking unthinkingly the interests of the poor, downtrodden rural population—indeed, much of the support for this Bill from outside the House comes from that same rural population. On the contrary, we who live in towns and cities are often envious of our fellow citizens who live in the country, envious of their closeness to nature, their skills and husbandry, their use and knowledge of animals.
Animals are at the disposal of men. We kill them for food, we regulate their numbers to preserve our own habitat and environment and we eradicate them, sometimes with great cruelty, when they endanger our lives or health. But when we kill, when we regulate or eradicate, we are doing it of necessity. Even if we are unavoidably cruel, we do it in the genuine belief that it is for the good of mankind. In their death, we seek no sensual pleasure. We do not deliberately choose to see them dice with death as when hares are coursed, as when people take pleasure from watching skilled hounds following the frantic efforts of the hare to preserve its life. This is not a use of animals in the service of man but an abuse, a perversion lacking in respect for animals and resulting in a coarsening of human sensibilities.
Opponents of the Bill have three main objections. They say that the Bill is premature and that the time is not yet ripe. The argument is that the British Field Sports Society has established the Staple Committee to examine the sport. This inquiry has nothing to do with the

abolition of hare coursing. Its objective is to bring it up to date, to modernise it, to look at the effect of new farming techniques upon the sport and to make fresh arrangements for stewarding at meetings. The Committee's object is to produce a new package, to clothe it with a mantle of respectability and then to sell it like a new detergent. But it will not get rid of the "under-stains". The sport will remain "a barbarous anachronism", to quote my distinguished Front Bench colleague.
The second argument against the Bill is the cruelty argument. Roughly, it can be summarised in this way: nature is cruel and hares face all manner of horrid and lingering deaths in nature or on the road through motor cars, or by being wounded by a shotgun. Death by coursing in comparison can be short and sweet. Indeed, it is almost merciful, and the hare should be grateful and welcome it. Therefore, for the hare's sake maintain coursing. This argument is as hypocritical as it is irrelevant. By this argument we can justify war because otherwise men may die of cancer or be knocked over in the street by a motor car.
It is true that what happens in nature is often cruel, but in a sense it happens by chance, by accident in the normal course of life. We are concerned with deaths purposefully contrived to give pleasure.
The third argument is the new one, the "with it" argument, the up-to-date argument, the "ready for the 'seventies" argument. It is the conservation argument. Quickly summarised, the argument is this—if we do not have hare coursing, the habitat of the brown hare will disappear, keep coursing and keep the brown hare. This is a weird and wonderful argument which equates coursing with conservation. We conserve to course, not because we think what we are in danger of losing is worth while in itself, which I always understood was the object of conservation, but because we wish to course the brown hare. That is a meaningless and selfish argument which would not recommend itself to any respectable conservationist.
In the Birmingham Post—not one of my usual bedside companions—in an editorial on 24th February, following the


first day at the Altcar meeting, there appeared the following:
It is better to leave on one side the question of what sort of people they can be who can find pleasure in, or at any rate are unmoved by, the spectacle of a hare (of all creatures) being pulled apart in the interests of 'sport'. It is more profitable to ask what sort of people we are, we the people who find this pitiless business inhuman and revolting, to allow it to continue.

It is for this reason, because we find hare coursing a pitiful business, inhuman and revolting, I beg leave to introduce this Bill.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 181, Noes 0.

Division No. 44.]
AYES
4.30 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Oswald, Thomas


Allaun, Frank, (Salford, E.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Palmer, Arthur


Allen, Scholefield
Hamling, William
Pardoe, John


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Hardy, Peter
Pavitt, Laurie


Ashley, Jack
Harper, Joseph
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Atkinson, Norman
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Perry, Ernest G.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Pounder, Rafton


Barnes, Michael
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Barnett, Joel
Horam, John
Prescott, John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Probert, Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bishop, E. S.
Hunt, John
Rankin, John


Booth, Albert
Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Bowden, Andrew
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Richard, Ivor


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Buchan, Norman
John, Brynmor
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roper, John


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, West)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Rose, Paul B.


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Judd, Frank
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Kerr, Russell
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Kilfedder, James
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Cohen, Stanley
Kinnock, Neil
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Coleman, Donald
Kinsey, J. R.
Sillars, James


Concannon, J. D.
Lane, David
Silverman, Julius


Conlan, Bernard
Latham, Arthur
Skinner, Dennis


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Spearing, Nigel


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Leonard, Dick
Stallard, A. W.


Dalyell, Tam
Lestor, Miss Joan
Stanbrook, Ivor


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Steel, David


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, Central)
Lipton, Marcus
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lomas, Kenneth
Strang, Gavin


Doig, Peter
Loughlin, Charles
Taverne, Dick


Dormand, J. D.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Thomas, Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W.)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McBride, Neil
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Driberg, Tom
McCann, John
Tinn, James


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mackie, John
Tomney, Frank


Eadie, Alex
Maclennan, Robert
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Tuck, Raphael


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Marks, Kenneth
Varley, Eric G.


Ellis, Tom
Marquand, David
Wainwright, Edwin


English, Michael
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Evans, Fred
Meacher, Michael
Wallace, George


Faulds, Andrew
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Watkins, David


Fernyhough, E.
Mikardo, Ian
Weitzman, David


Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham, Ladywood)
Millan, Bruce
Wellbeloved, James


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Whitehead, Phillip


Fookes, Miss Janet
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Whitlock, William


Foot, Michael
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Forrester, John
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Freeson, Reginald
Murray, Ronald King
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Garrett, W. E.
Murton, Oscar



Gilbert, Dr. John
Ogden, Eric
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Golding, John
O'Halloran, Michael
Mr. Eric S. Heffer and


Grant, George (Morpeth)
O'Malley, Brian
Mr. Gerald Kaufman


Grant, John D. (Islington, East)
Orme, Stanley





NOES


Nil


TELLERS FOR THE NOES: Mr. William Price and Mr. Joseph Ashton.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. McNamara, Mr. Ashton, Mr. Concannon, Mr. Heffer, Mr. Kaufman, Mr. Sheldon, Mr. William Price, Mr. Hardy, Mr. Kinnock, Mr. Loughlin and Mr. Pounder.

HARE COURSING (ABOLITION)

Bill to make hare coursing matches illegal, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 22nd January, and to be printed. [Bill 66.]

Orders of the Day — HIGHWAYS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.38 p.m.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
As the Long Title shows, this is a Bill to make further provision with respect to highways, streets and bridges in England and Wales. Highway law was consolidated in the Highways Act, 1959, and I recollect that at that time those who were in the House hoped that that Act would be, as it were, the launching pad for a rocket of reform of highway law. In fact, one must now admit that in the decade which has followed there has been no such blast-off. There had been a few small but useful fireworks, in particular those ignited by Members in Private Members' Bills.
Sir William Aitken, then the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, promoted and piloted through the House the Bill which became Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1961, what one might call the nonfeasance Act, which made it possible for the citizen to recover damages from the highway authority for injury received as a result of failure to keep a street in repair, although the Bill also did many other useful things. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) promoted and piloted through the House the Bill which became the Highways (Amendment) Act, 1965, what one might call the snow clearance Act. In addition, there were some highway law reforms in Government Bills which became the Local Government Act, 1966, the Countryside Act, 1968, and the Transport Act, 1968.
Having referred to these legislative efforts as perhaps small but useful fireworks, I am no doubt vulnerable to the accusation that this Bill may be a damp squib, but I am confident that it is nothing of the sort. I cannot claim that it is a rocket of reform, but I do claim that it does some very useful and necessary things in tidying up some of the outdated highway law. In presenting the


Bill, I should perhaps apologise to a previous eminent hon. Member of this House, Sir Alan Herbert, for depriving him of some perfect material. Listen, for example, to this. A highway authority can acquire land for laying a drain. It can lay a drain, but in law it has no power to allow water to enter that drain. If water has entered that drain, it has no legal power to let the water out at the other end. Clause 21 endeavours to put that right.
A local authority can legally use a motor roller or a scraper on a footpath or bridleway, that is to say, an appliance for the maintenance of the footpath or bridleway, but it cannot legally use a mechanical digger for a drain or a truck to carry kerbstones, that is to say, a vehicle to carry out improvements to the footpath or bridleway. Clause 24 tries to put that right.
Let me tell those who have been defeated by the unfortunate but necessarily technical drafting of the Bill before they have got beyond Clause 1, of the fantastic anomaly that the Clause will remove. A highway authority for a classified road can construct that classified road or improve an existing classified road, but it cannot legally carry out any alterations to the side roads entering that new classified road, such as diverting, raising, lowering or stopping up the side roads, which may be necessitated by the work on the classified road. There again the Bill tries to put right that anomaly.
The Bill deals with much more serious matters than that. Anyone embarking upon even a modest measure of highway reform would wish to achieve five objects. First, to make the highways safer; secondly, to build the highways quicker; thirdly, to keep the highways better; fourthly, to make people's participation in the planning of highways simpler; and, fifthly, to make compensation for adjoining owners fair. I claim that the Bill makes a contribution to each one of those five objectives. May I then use them as headings to my comments on the Bill.
Going back to the first, to make the highways safer, Clause 18 improves the law relating to pedestrian guardrails and barriers and Clause 19 improves the law relating to footbridges over highways. Both are useful safety measures in highway law. Then there is Part II of the

Bill. Clauses 25 to 36 are headed "Lawful and unlawful interference with highways and streets", and they give the highway authority control over dangerously obstructive kerbside builders' skips that have become more frequent on the roads. This part of the Bill deals with animals straying on the road, the fencing of adjacent dangerous land, the erection of retaining walls and the laying down of motorcar entrances across verges and footpaths, all of which are useful safety measures. There are some important safety provisions in Clauses 30, 31 and 32 relating to building operations in or near a street, the execution of works in a street and the construction of bridges over streets. In the past few years there have been some tragic accidents through building operations near and in streets, resulting from the collapse of cranes, scaffolding, hoardings and so on, which have fallen on to innocent passersby. These Clauses seek to improve the law in this vital aspect of the safety of the road user.
I turn to the second heading, to build the highways quicker. Clauses 14 to 17 achieve this. They do so without depriving the individual of an effective way of protecting his rights and having his case heard. May I remind the House of the preliminary steps and the statutory procedures which are adopted in any substantial road building scheme.
First, many lines for the road are considered and they are discussed in confidence with the local authorities and, perhaps, the landowners concerned. They are not at that stage published for fear of unnecessarily blighting the property on several routes which are being considered, all but one of which will eventually be rejected. The route that is chosen is published as the proposed route but is still open to discussion.
The Government intend to introduce more extensive publicity for highway proposals when a line of road has been chosen and is put forward as the Government's proposal. At that stage we intend in future that there should be individual notification to occupiers of land and property within a broad band around the scheme; that there should be some improvement in the Press publicity and in the sketch plans of the scheme; that posters should supplement the formal public notice and that public meetings should be held more often at the time


of publication of the proposals. These are matters which do not need statutory provision but will be done administratively. The procedure required to be embodied in a Statute is that relating to orders which give a new road its legitimate birth. The three types of orders involved are the line order setting out where the road will be, the side road order and the compulsory purchase order.
In streamlining this procedure, we have in the Bill been concerned to guard against undue encroachment on private rights and against the curtailment of public protest. We want to keep the rights of the private individual and of amenity societies to put forward their cases at proper inquiries, but the fact is that the present procedure is much too inflexible. This is to nobody's benefit. For example, at present there is a fixed period of three months in which objections must be launched. Clause 14(1) of the Bill seeks to replace that three months fixed period by a minimum of six weeks. I stress the fact that the six weeks is a minimum period. The object is that the period should be tailored to fit the nature and size of the scheme. Three months may be too short in some cases and in many others it may be unnecessarily long. If we set a period of six weeks as a minimum, then six weeks or six months may be chosen for the particular scheme in hand. Six weeks is a period that is now common to housing law, planning law and to the law relating to roads in Scotland. Therefore, there is nothing extraordinary about that period and it allows flexibility in dealing with schemes.
Another aspect of the present inflexibility of the law is that if significant changes in a scheme are thought to be desirable as a result of objections properly brought forward, then the scheme may have to be scrapped. If that occurs, all that has been done is thrown away and the whole matter must begin again at square one, involving a delay of perhaps six or 12 months. The two proposals in the Bill which seek to improve that situation are first a procedure for notifying persons likely to be affected by a proposed change and giving them the opportunity to make representations. That is dealt with in Clause 15(2). Secondly, there is a power to make an order or scheme in part, so that where part of a

scheme is relatively uncontroversial that part can be proceeded with while the controversial part is examined. In that way, if any change is desired to be made after objections have come forward, we do not have to go back to square one.

Mr. Bob Brown: On the question of allowing part of a scheme to proceed, would the hon. Gentleman not agree that this procedure might pre-empt the decision on the other part on which there is major objection?

Mr. Page: Yes, this procedure should be used with discretion. There are many cases in which perhaps a considerable length of road is not in dispute at all but has originally been included in one order. It may be only a small part of a road, involving perhaps a by-pass to a town or village, that is in dispute. It is disappointing that under the present law we have to go back to the beginning and make a new order for the whole road. We seek to provide now, by Clauses 15(1) and 48(1) that where we are satisfied that there is a length of road on which there is no dispute at all, we can go ahead with an order on that part and leave the controversial part to be further discussed.
A further point is that the present procedures permit no deviations at all once the centre line of a road has been fixed. Where the three types of order are taken consecutively, detailed design work will not have been completed when the centre line is fixed by the first line order. As the scheme is further discussed, hardship may be obviated by deviating slightly to avoid a person's house or garden or some affected property. In other words, although everybody wants the deviation, it cannot be done without going back to square one. Clause 17(2) would permit deviations to be specified in a line order. In other words, the first order would say, "You may deviate so far from the centre line", a figure representing the deviation would appear in the order and the final design of the road could be fitted in to meet any cases of hardship that might arise if the original line were too firmly adhered to.
I have spoken of the three kinds of orders and have dealt with them as being taken consecutively. The more usual, and perhaps best, course is for the three orders to be taken concurrently at the


same inquiries. Unfortunately, the present procedure for dealing with matters concurrently is quite inadequate. The proposals in the Bill provide for schemes and orders to be dealt with concurrently. This is dealt with by Clauses 14(6) and 47(1) and (2). The present position is that even if there is one inquiry for all three orders which have been processed concurrently in that way, then a line order cannot be made at the same time. If they are processed together they are decided together, but side road orders and compulsory purchase orders can be made only after the line order has been made and brought into effect by a notice in the London Gazette and in local newspapers. This delay in procedure is of no advantage to anyone. It is "dead time" in the production of a scheme. The proposal to allow orders to be made concurrently will save up to two months in the procedure in each case without any loss of private rights.
Throughout the procedure I am anxious to give genuine objectors, such as individual landowners and amenity societies, full scope to make their case, but not false scope to filibuster or to delay the proceedings just for the sake of delay. Much time is at present lost and the benefits of a new road scheme may be delayed because the law does not require objectors to act in a reasonable, businesslike manner.
There are three ways in which the Bill seeks to overcome this difficulty without removing anything other than the objector's right to delay a scheme deliberately or perhaps carelessly. They are as follows. First, the power to require an objector to state grounds of an objection within the objection period I mentioned. If an objector does not give grounds for his objection it is difficult to deal with the objection, or even to determine whether there should be an inquiry at all. Frequently much delay occurs because an objector does not exactly specify his objection.
Secondly, there should be power to disregard objections which relate to decisions taken at an earlier stage following completion of the statutory procedure for that stage. Much time is at present wasted when, for example, objectors to compulsory purchase orders seek to rehearse objections taken previously at the line order stage or the side road order

stage. If our proposals are accepted, objectors will still be able to argue that roads should be built slightly differently or deviate a little, but they will not be allowed to go back over the broad principles of the scheme which have been settled in connection with an earlier order.
My third point is that there will be a power to require objectors to give notice before an inquiry of alternative routes which they intend to propose at the inquiry. Too often an objector turns up at an inquiry with an alternative route which it has not been possible for the Ministry or any person concerned in the inquiry to study. The result is an adjournment of the inquiry and a loss of time. Those are the main provisions over streamlining the procedure which leads up to the commencement of the construction of the road.
I come to my third heading: to keep highways better. I take one example of this, although there are a number throughout the Bill. Clauses 54 and 56 the powers of statutory undertakers to pull up roads. It is probably not generally known, for example, that before the termination of his employment with the Post Office, Lord Hall could have ordered the ripping up of the whole of the M1.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: A pity he did not.

Mr. Page: The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) says it is a pity that he did not. But I wanted to exaggerate the position in that way to show that there is no control which highway authorities, and even the Government, have over the Post Office at present to rip up trunk roads or even motorways. The Bill seeks to put that right. There are a number of other provisions, some of which I have already mentioned under the heading of safety, which will help maintain the roads better.
My fourth point is about making simpler the participation of people in the planning of the highways. I have already touched upon this under other headings, especially in the reforms of procedure. Another aspect of this is that cooperation between the authority whose duty it is to carry out works for the benefit of the community, in this case to construct roads, and the individual who is called upon to sacrifice his property,


rights or amenities community.
In many respects the Bill provides a code or even a modest charter for that co-operation between the authority and the individual, which has not previously existed in many spheres with which the Bill deals. For example, Clauses 2 to 9 contain a new code of rights and duties between the authority and the individual when for the public good the individual is required to give up an entrance to his property from the street. Those Clauses cover the legitimate interests of frontagers by the provisions for compensation and the requirement that an order that the access to the street be closed should not be made or confirmed unless the authority is satisfied that access to the premises is not reasonably required or that another reasonably convenient access is available or will be provided by the authority.
Although there is a background of compulsion in that the authority can close that access compulsorily, that is always necessary where public works are to be executed. I claim that those Clauses are a framework for speedy, amicable agreement between the highway authority and the private individual. The same remarks apply to Part III of the Bill, which deals with the acquisition of land and interests in land for highway purposes. Clauses 37 and 38 consolidate acquisition rights. Clause 39 gives some welcome rights to the authority, and to the individual land owner, to acquire property in advance of requirements. That perhaps may seem a little formidable, but in my experience it is usually just what the owners of property want. Once it is known that a road is contemplated, the values of property in the neighbourhood drop. The blight provisions may not apply at that stage. In the present state of the law, the owner may not be able to serve a purchase notice, but yet he wants to be relieved of the property as quickly as possible. Clause 39 will be welcomed both by authorities and individual owners.

Mr. A. P. Costain: This is an important point. Every hon. Member must have had some constituent who has been caught by this one. What right has the individual to force the authority to purchase a house ahead of requirement? Has he definite

rights, or is this just a discretionary power?

Mr. Page: This does not alter the present blight provisions, the right to serve a purchase notice. However, it gives the highway authority greater power to acquire before requirement. If the highway authority has that power, at least the land owner can go to the authority and ask it to exercise the power. It may be that one ought to apply some purchase notice procedure to this, but we can discuss that at a later stage.

Mr. Frederick Motley: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibility of making the compulsory purchase aspect of the blight provisions bite a little earlier? It is rather a long way down the chain before the right to have one's property acquired is vested in the property owner.

Mr. Page: Yes, I have given some thought to that possibility. We shall see whether we can discuss that further at a later stage in the Bill. At the moment, there is an increase in the power of the highway authority to acquire at a much earlier stage than under the present law. Following that, there is a useful set of provisions contained in Clauses 40 to 43. The House will be familiar with Clauses in Private Bills giving authorities the right to acquire not the land itself but, where appropriate, rights over the land. This is frequently convenient to both parties, for the laying of pipes, the making of water courses, laying cables, putting in supports and so on.
It has been necessary in the Bill to apply the present code of compensation and the blight provisions under which an authority can be forced to purchase the acquisition of rights. I regret that this makes for some rather long Schedules to the Bill, but it will be of assistance to hon. and right hon. Members in studying the Bill to have what are commonly known as Keeling schedules which set out in full the law as it will be when amended. But it is necessary to apply the code of compensation and the blight provisions to the new code of acquisition of rights over land in place of acquiring the land itself. Here we have another code of co-operation between the authority and the individual, this time in connection with the granting of rights over


property rather than the disposal of the property.
That leads me to my fifth and last point which is designed to make compensation for adjoining owners fairer. As the House will know, this subject arises acutely when one has an elevated motorway passing within a few feet of a bedroom window. That is the exaggerated example, perhaps, but it happens in many other cases with the construction of motorways and with the construction of ordinary roads that the amenities of an adjoining property are taken away sometimes without any of the property being taken for the purpose of the works. If a small part of an adjoining property is taken, the normal compensation code applies. If no part of the property is taken, the value of the property may be very much reduced but no compensation is payable.
I wish that I could say that we have introduced into the Bill a new code of compensation to compensate people thus injured. But this type of injury applies not only to the construction of roads but to many different kinds of public works. I give the House the assurance that we are carrying out a very comprehensive review of the compensation code—

Mr. Bob Brown: So did we.

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman says, "So did we". I have benefited from the review carried out by the previous Administration. I have tried to add to it, I hope constructively. But it is a complex problem and one which raises far-reaching financial implications. We hope, though, to be able to put the results of the review before the House in the not too distant future. But it was not appropriate to include it in this Bill since we are only dealing with roads and highways, whereas that compensation code must deal with public works far more extensively.
What we have done in the Bill is to make sure that, where any new rights of acquisition are given to a highway authority or any new powers over property such as the closing of a private access to a highway or the acquisition of rights instead of the acquisition of land, the present compensation code is carefully applied to the acquisition of those rights or the exercise of those powers

which may cause injury or damage to the individual or his property.
In the Clauses that I have already mentioned as dealing with the code of cooperation between the authority and the individual, there are provisions for compensation in those cases. One hopes normally that the compensation will be agreed between the parties. But there must be the background of compulsory acquisition and an appeal by the individual owner to have his compensation settled by the Lands Tribunal.
I can only express disappointment that we have been unable to put before the House a complete revision of the compensation code in this Bill. But we have ensured that all new rights given to public bodies in the Bill carry with them the consequent duty to pay proper compensation, as the law stands at present, to those from whom rights have been acquired.
This is a Bill in respect of which I have had to go through the points in some detail. It is a piecemeal Bill. I have not attempted to cover every detail, and I am sure that the House would not wish me to do so. No doubt there is much that can be done to improve the Bill in Committee, and I am sure that we shall have the co-operation of the Opposition in that, because I do not claim the full parentage of the Bill. It started before the days of the present Government.
We are very happy to put it before the House now in, we hope, a good form which will help speed up the construction of roads and, at the same time, give protection to the individual owner who is affected and to those in the amenity societies who wish to put before the Government their points of view about maintaining the countryside.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: I am sure that the House and a wide body of opinion outside are indebted to the Minister for explaining the provisions of the Bill with his usual clarity and care, and for making a very strong case for a Measure of this kind. I make it immediately clear that the Opposition welcomes it. It is a sensible Measure, which perhaps we do not get often enough these days, and, as the House knows, we on this side never oppose legislation for the sake of opposition. When we have a


sensible Bill, we are happy to give it our support.
The Minister's case is that we, in the 1970s, are operating the very complex procedures of extending our road system with legislation which is still basically that of the 1930s, and, judging by the illustration that the Minister gave us of drainage legislation, probably many years earlier.
While we have the principal Act, as it is called in the present Bill, that Act of 1959 was largely a consolidation Measure and did not make a point of trying to bring our highways legislation up to date. I think that we can assure the Minister that this is a non-controversial Measure in principle, though no doubt we shall have arguments in Committee on some of the detailed provisions. What I cannot promise is that it will be totally uncontroversial in some quarters outside.
It is surprising that the Bill has received so little publicity. Perhaps that illustrates the view which I have held for a long time that, if one wants to be sure of getting something done with the minimum of publicity, one should do it in a Bill or statement on the Floor of the House. One rarely makes the front page if one acts in what should be the full glare of public opinion. A leak of what may be coming along is more likely to get a disproportionate amount of publicity.
As the Minister said, the Bill covers a wide range of very detailed provisions that we shall need to look at in Committee, though I am sure that it was right for the Minister to go through them with some care. However, today we shall be more concerned with the main reason for the legislation rather than the provisions which will be considered at a later stage.
Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that the Bill is sufficiently wide to enable us to anticipate problems which will arise in the next decade? We know how difficult it is to get parliamentary time for complicated legislation of this kind, and we do not want to overlook any problem which is just beginning to arise. I have in mind the power of local authorities to designate priority routes for public transport, which is becoming increasingly important in many of our cities as one way of helping public transport in its difficulties. Another increasingly important issue

concerns the powers of local authorities to control parking, especially in cases where local people decide to have pedestrian precincts in the centres of cities and towns. Unless traffic is prohibited in some of our towns, many historic buildings will suffer greatly. As I say, we must ask ourselves whether we do not need to anticipate some of these points in a Measure of this kind.
The Minister spoke about the five objects which he had in mind in presenting the Bill. I am sure that in broad terms they commend themselves to all hon. Members. I found in this sphere, as so often happens in others, that there is no problem getting people to agree with the principle or the objective. The problem always seems to arise in their interpretation of what the objective should be.
We all agree that we need more roads. Equally, we agree that, as far as possible, roads should be built with the minimum disturbance to amenity, property, and the rest. The great problem is that when it comes to a decision subjective elements are inevitably involved.
It seems to me that in looking at the Bill we have to bear in mind three points. First, will it preserve the rights not merely of the individual whose property may be affected but of those concerned with amenity or other factors to have their cases properly ventilated with every opportunity of presenting them in the most powerful way?
Secondly, we should be concerned that where, for the public good, people's property or rights are taken away or interfered with, there should be adequate compensation.
Thirdly, we should consider the kind of road planning programme which we shall have, because, on the one hand, this is the justification for this kind of legislation and, on the other hand, the volume of the projected programme will underline the urgency or otherwise of getting a Bill like this on the Statute Book.
I do not think that any hon. Member will disagree with the principle enunciated by the Minister, to which I subscribe, that the individual must have the right to present his case in the best possible way. On the other hand, I am not sure that the changes in procedure proposed by the Bill


will commend themselves with universal enthusiasm to all who are interested in roads. Questions will be raised because, whereas it seems silly to have three or four bites at the cherry, there are those around who like that exercise.
I was staggered when I was Minister to find that one had to go through the same exercise so many times. First, there is the line, then the side roads, and then the compulsory purchase provisions. If a new alternative cropped up in the course of the public inquiry system and there was to be any deviation, one had to go bask to square one and start all over again. Then those who had been quiet when the route which they preferred was going through, realising that another route might be preferred, would form a new lobby, and a new set of opponents seemed to be created.
I am sure that the Minister will agree, with his short experience, that a Minister can always be sure that no one will think that he is right in any decision which he takes. Certainly, as I had to make clear in the Press in the context of one of these arguments, I never found deputations waiting to tell the Minister that he had made the right decision. Ministers rarely get letters saying that they have made the right decision in this context. On the other hand, in this sphere, as no doubt in others, those opposed to what is suggested are naturally and properly extremely vocal in putting their points of view.
I was particularly glad that, in the context of rightly simplifying the procedures, the Minister indicated his intention, through administrative procedures, to give more publicity to these matters. This is essential. A six-weeks period is long enough as the minimum for notice of objection, provided that the intention is to have a line for a road made widely known in the area concerned so that not only the owners of land but everyone likely to be affected knows in the six weeks that this is being done.
I was particularly interested to see that where a number of alternative routes are explored and considerable work is done before deciding on the ultimate line put forward by the Minister for public inquiry, the information that has been gathered in the survey can be made available to objectors so that they may be spared the cost of perhaps going over the

same ground. In this way it is hoped that the public will feel that their participation is more real. It is always difficult for those who lack the expert knowledge available to the Minister and to the local authorities to prepare their cases for an inquiry unless they have substantial funds. Sometimes a spontaneous movement subscribes money for the engaging of experts, counsel, and the rest. But it is right that maximum help should be given to people to present their cases, particularly when the work has already been done by the local authority or by the Department.
No matter what we do we shall always have posed the fundamental problem that most people are in favour of roads, but not in the particular locality in which they live or in which they are accustomed to spending holidays or weekends.
I have noticed that most people who attend public inquiries to object to the building of roads usually travel by motorcar and that most of them own cars. Indeed, the idea that is sometimes put abroad is that there are the motorists, on the one hand, and, on the other, the people who believe in amenities. This is obviously nonsense, because we get extreme characters on both sides of such an argument. But most people who use motorcars are at the same time worried about some of the amenity matters about which various societies also worry.
A serious dilemma, to which, candidly, I do not know the answer, is how we get the maximum publicity and forward looking in road planning or, indeed, any other planning development without attracting blight. As a Minister, I was often asked: why has not the Ministry or the local authority, which is bound to look at several alternative possibilities of building a road in a particular area, published all these proposals so that, at the public inquiry, people could, as it were, have a local parliament on which they thought was the most suitable in their circumstances?
The Minister has mentioned, and I want to stress, the great problem created not merely by proposed new roads being published, but by the sight of a surveyor looking at particular fields. This often sends a rumour round the locality and it is difficult for people who want to sell their property in the intervening period to do so. That was why I asked the


Minister to look particularly at the problem of blight to see whether it was possible at an earlier stage than the final stage, which is necessary now, to give notice to the owners of property, because only in a limited sense can the owners of property require the Minister to purchase their property. While I may have less objection than the Minister to the extension of public ownership by acquiring property in this way, obviously there is bound to be a limit to the number of houses, particularly in urban areas, which the Minister can acquire because of alternative proposals about the provision of new roads.
Another aspect of blight, about which the Minister spoke, is that unless some part of a person's property is taken he cannot be compensated for injurious affection, noise, pollution and damage causing loss of value to his property as a result of a motorway or other form of public works construction.
A great nuisance is often suffered by people who, at the end of the day, are affected not so much by the construction of a road, as from the fact that their property is near the road used by construction vehicles. Over several years they may have to put up with a great deal of nuisance, but I do not think that there is any power for compensation to be paid to them. This is something that we ought to consider. It is a complex problem, and I understand the Minister's reluctance to take the House into his confidence today about the line that may be taken to tackle the problem, but I put it to the House that there would have been a great roar from the benches opposite if, when we were the Government, we had brought in a Bill of this kind without making some provision for dealing with injurious affection and blight. These are real problems, and they must be tackled. I was conscious of the difficulty of dealing with them for the short time when I was Minister but they must, nevertheless, be dealt with.
It is important to get from the Government an assurance on one principle on which I hope we can agree. It is that if additional public expenditure is required to compensate people who suffer injurious affection, that will not be used as a reason for reducing the size of the road programme. If £X millions are in-

volved in a new claim for compensation, that is a matter which the House will have to deal with, but it should not be used as a reason for reducing the public expenditure to which we are committed for the building of roads. I think that it would be right to get from the Government tonight a statement, if only in very general terms, about their intention with regard to the road programme generally. The extent of the road building programme is obviously relevant to the kind of legislation that we need to ensure the speedy and efficient implementation of it.
One of the last things that I was privileged to do as a Minister was to present to the House a roads strategy which projected a substantial increase in the amount of public funds to be devoted to the building of roads. This was done last May. It was a large programme, and many people laughed when I said that it would take a minimum of 15 years to carry out, and that if economic circumstances were not as favourable as one would like, it would take perhaps 20 years to reach the point where we had overcome congestion and got round to having a road system of the kind that we needed on amenity, convenience and economic grounds.
On looking at some of the roads proposals, I was staggered to discover the economic loss that we suffer every day because of congestion, injuries, and so on. I was staggered to find that many of the priority schemes had a return of 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. This is a common figure in assessing priorities, which means that in economic terms we pay for the road two or three years after it is completed. I therefore consider that it would be wrong to retreat from the kind of programme that I put to the House last May. In fact, I should welcome the possibility of its being extended so that we can overcome the arrears and get the road system that we need in less than the 15 years which, to me and my advisers, seemed to be the minimum.
I pay tribute to the tremendous amount of work done by the officials in the old Ministry of Transport, and I should like to resist the criticism that one hears sometimes from bodies outside that if only the road programme were in hands other than those of civil servants, somehow or other a magic wand could be


waved and we could complete the programme twice as quickly, at half the cost. I hope that in the short time they have been in office hon. Gentlemen opposite realise that the problem is a little more complex than that.
Quite apart from the size of the road programme, it is essential to try to plan ahead. Too often in the past problems have resulted from what I call piecemeal development. In one celebrated case the problem arose because a motorway had gone so far and then stopped. The objective was known, but the problem was how to get from X to Y. It might have been possible to adopt a different line if we had started at the beginning and planned the whole line from that stage. That is something that I should like to encourage.
I think we have to make it clear that if, when we are looking 15 or 20 years ahead, we start to publish plans in detail well in advance of when the funds will be available to implement them, we run right into the blight problem about which the Minister spoke. When I tried to explain this to the House I was scoffed at by the Opposition because I was not there and then willing to publish a plan which would show all the roads in the scheme. It is difficult to plan ahead unless we do some real hard thinking about how to overcome the blight problem, but I think that many of our problems arise from the fact that we tend to do the easy bit first.
We tend to build motorways between towns, without ensuring that the links into the towns at each end are ready. This is so even with the M.1. It has been in use for many years, but the links into central London have not been completed. We tend to do the easy bits first, without deciding whether we are to have a dual carriageway, or whether a certain proportion of the road is to be dual carriageway. I plead for more long-term road planning so that we can avoid piecemeal development. I plead, too, for the maintenance of the kind of programme that I presented. I should, of course, be delighted if it were possible to extend that programme, because I am conscious of the great need for an efficient roads system. It is because I believe that the Bill is an important weapon in

getting the roads system that we need that I commend it to my hon. Friends.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to face the House for the first time in this debate. I hope I shall not strain the indulgence of the House too far.
For 19 years my constituency of Wells was represented by a man whose sincerity, kindliness and integrity would be difficult for any successor to emulate. The House will know that Commander Lynch Maydon came to the House after a proud record of distinction in the submarine service, a record which even for that service was exceptional. The qualities required of a man to command in turn three of His Majesty's submarines throughout the six years of emergency, against a background of heavy losses are difficult for anyone to overrate.
From this experience, he brought to his constituency a shrewd understanding of ordinary people which was liked and respected. It is a matter of much regret to his many friends that, as the result of his long service to his country, in recent months he has suffered a severe toll on his health. I am sure that all hon. Members who knew him well will want to wish him a speedy recovery.
I count myself very fortunate to represent my constituency. It has an immense variety of occupations. It is the centre of the world's best cheese for a start. It has a huge dairy farming industry. Within it is carried on some of the most sophisticated electronic research in the country. It has one of the largest and most progressive footwear organisations in the world. It can boast a countryside and ancient buildings whose charm and beauty can match those anywhere else in the country. They give enormous pleasure to people coming from all parts of the kingdom and the world.
We are also, I fear, a constituency with atrocious and inadequate highways. Our road system in some places has been little improved, particularly in width, since the Highways Acts of the last century. This gives rise to the greatest anguish and concern. Not only do we have the holiday exodus to Devon and Cornwall in the summer, going from east to west on our roads; we also have a large amount


of heavy transport travelling north to south, from South Wales and Bristol towards Southampton.
In addition to this, the same roads are carrying a constant stream of heavy stone lorries from our quarries, which provide the greater part of the stone for building the principal roads and motorways for the rest of England.
In the matter of roads, my constituency has a "full house". We are the producer, the middleman and the consumer, and we are fast becoming the consumed. Our elderly people in the villages are finding conditions difficult and serious. Our children are a constant source of anxiety to their parents when walking to school. We have a serious accident record, and our ancient buildings are badly shaken by the constant convoys of massive stone lorries. We need by-passes and relief roads in every town and major improvements in every village. I am left in no doubt about this whenever I go to any part of my constituency.
Anything which can be done to speed up the procedural delays in getting better roads and safer roads will be greedily welcomed in our part of the world. For the first time, we have two competent Ministers from the West Country who really know what the West Country has suffered all these years from inadequate roads. For one short moment, we had the Minister in charge of all the transport services, my right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), but that was, unfortunately, too good to last, and he was taken away from us pretty quickly.
But, satisfactory though the streamlining of procedure may be, the House should ensure that the safeguards are there for the individual rights and freedoms. I was glad to hear that a code is being produced, what my hon. Friend called "a code of amicable agreement", so that these rights may be safeguarded. A vast amount of resistance builds up against road planning procedure very quickly if it is ineptly and inadequately carried out by the highway authority. However good the Bill may be, the carrying-out of these procedures is vitally important as well. I therefore welcome what the Minister has said about public

meetings before any decision is reached on these routes, and I should have liked it written into the Bill.
Of course, planning blight on an individual's house does not occur always or only when a specific route has been agreed and announced. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) said that, even if a surveyor is seen walking about, that is cause for rumour. If he goes for a Sunday afternoon's stroll with his dog, he may cast planning blight on some unfortunate person's home. This must be carefully considered.
This can occur, too, when the highway authority allegedly commits itself to a route without formal plans: no formal objections can be raised and the individual has no means of redress I am glad to see that the Bill attempts to put right that anomaly, which has caused great anxiety in my constituency. Over 50 houses were blighted in this way and nothing could be done about it.
Another matter is the lack of certainty about future routes dragging on for years. This, again, causes much blight and difficulty to ordinary people. If speedier procedures are to work, and work better, the compensation must be generous and fair and the rules must eliminate unnecessary anxiety and hardship to a greater degree than in the past. In this way, we shall take the sting out of the anti-improvement lobby which immediately builds up when a proposal is made for road improvements.
One improvement which I should like to see for my constituency is in the way in which the Ministry calculates the economic rate of return on a proposed by-pass or route before it will give its blessing to that route. At present these calculations do not differentiate between the size of lorries. Whether a lorry is a three-tonner, 28-tonner or 32-tonner, they are all called "three-passenger car units".
It would make an enormous difference in our applications to get improvements made if those calculations could be done differently, so that the 28-ton stone lorries which pour through our constituency could be given the weighting they deserve. I suggest, too, that the hard-pressed computer "drivers" in the Ministry drop their keyboards and consider other criteria on which our towns could qualify for by-passes—particularly on amenity


grounds. This is badly needed to preserve the fabric of the ancient buildings in my constituency, about which I wish the Bill said more.
I would like highway authorities to be obliged to place at the head of their priorities for minor improvements the need to put footways along principal roads, where schoolchildren have to walk to go to primary or infants' schools. The House will understand the anger and anguish of mothers whose children have to walk along these roads without a proper footway and who have to compete in a narrow 22-ft. road with 28-ton stone lorries making a terrifying noise. Although they may not be going very fast, they are very frightening objects. Proper footways for school children should be a top priority.
Unfortunately, many of these projects are at present not accomplished until there has been a tragedy. I have always felt that it was wrong that a tragedy was needed before necessary road improvements could be made. This is too frequently the case and it represents an inhuman and desk-bound attitude. I hope that the Minister will impress on local highway authorities the need to prevent casualties rather than wait for them to happen before making improvements.
Despite the high demand that exists for every form of social service, I am glad that the task of improving our roads is continuing to maintain a good position in the priority programme. It is extremely important that this programme has the priority it needs. I welcome the Bill and hope that it may be further improved to include some of the points I have mentioned.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Bob Brown: The House as a whole will wish to join me in telling the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) that we thoroughly enjoyed his maiden speech. We also wish his predecessor, Commander Maydon, a speedy recovery. We were sorry to hear how ill he has been since the election.
Although the hon. Member for Wells will not expect me to comment on the many interesting topics he raised in his speech, I join with him in expressing regret at our no longer having a Minister of Transport as such. I trust that the

hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not comment further on his remarks, except to assure him that we listened to his speech with great interest and look forward to hearing from him on many future occasions.
Hon. Members will probably expect me to join in the general welcome which has been given to the Bill. After all, I am a part-author of the Measure. I am particularly pleased with its 12 Clauses that deal with road safety, since this was one of the interests closest to my heart both in local government and during my stay at the then Ministry of Transport.
When introducing the Bill the Minister spoke of five headings, one being the need to build more quickly. In this connection, I pay tribute to the work of the road construction units, which were established by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) when she was Minister of Transport.
During my stay at St. Christopher House I had the pleasure of visiting each and every one of these units. This enabled me to see schemes at first hand, in their various stages, from the drawing board to completion and opening. This mix of County Hall and Whitehall—this experiment in which County Hall and Ministry staffs worked together—has been a tremendous success and has played a profound part in the drive forward in the provision of new highways. This drive was particularly notable under Labour.
I hope that when the Under-Secretary completes his term of office he will be able to claim, as I am able to claim after my term of office, that his Government is spending, as mine did, twice as much money as the former Conservative Government spent five years earlier on new roads and six times as much as was being spent ten years earlier. In other words, I hope that this type of improvement in the completion of new roads will continue. I am sure that the road construction units will play their part.
It would be invidious to mention the names of individuals, though I am sure that nobody will mind my referring to two people out of the many engineers both on the Ministry side and on the county council side who have worked in this experiment, which I hope will now be a permanent feature. I refer to James


Drake, Bridgemaster and County Surveyor of Lancashire, and Basil Cotton, Durham County Surveyor. Nobody who drives north-west or north-east can fail but to be impressed by the improvements that these individuals—these tremendous characters in their own right, working within the road construction units—have helped to bring about.
If there is any part of the Bill about which I am somewhat anxious, it is Clause 14. Perhaps further consideration can be given in Committee to this provision because it deals with a vital aspect of this type of planning; namely, the rights of the individual. While in office I was assailed time and again because of delays in pressing ahead with road schemes. I always defended the delays on the basis that it was preferable to consider the interests of the individual even if it meant delaying a scheme. I am worried because the Clause refers to a reduction in the objecting period, from three months to what the Minister described as a minimum of six weeks. All too frequently minima become maxima. I hope that this period will not be reduced so drastically.
As for the individual being required to state the grounds for his objecting to a scheme and to give information of alternative routes, I am concerned more with the individual than with the large amenity interests because organisations like the National Trust and C.P.R.E. are capable of looking after themselves. I am more interested in John Citizen or, more particularly, Geordie Citizen—the little man who, unlike the big organisation, has had to rely on a poster stuck up on a telegraph pole at the end of the street in his village to know what is happening locally.
For this reason I was delighted to hear the Minister speak of more extensive publicity for road proposals. Individual notices are far preferable to posters, particularly since most of these are set in eight point and are jargonised by people whose names I will not mention. The result at the end of the day is that the average individual does not know what is likely to happen to his area. Posters in simple language which can be understood by John Citizen should be displayed around an area before a scheme is proceeded with.
Clause 19—"Footbridges over highways"—causes me concern. Generally speaking, it is a safety Clause. I should like it to be strengthened. I am pleased to see the provision relating to lighting such bridges. I should like the Minister to consider giving the parapet massive illumination with the embodiment of a sign that could not be missed stating the clearance height. Perhaps an electronic device could be built into the structure in an effort to avoid terrible tragedies of the type which have occurred on footbridges over highways.
Clauses 25 and 26, which deal with the control of builders' skips, are to be welcomed by all. Although not a great number of fatal accidents have been caused by the proliferation of builders' skips on blind corners, there must have been many accidents resulting in pain and suffering which have resulted from badly lighted builders' skips being left lying about.
I hope that the provision in Clause 26(7) for paying moneys into the police fund will not encourage the Secretary of State for the Home Department to be tougher in his attitude to the just claim of police officers for higher wages. I hope that he will not think that the police fund will take care of everything.
Clause 27, dealing with the straying of animals on to the highway, substitutes "keeper" for "owner". This disturbs me, because it is calculated to let many irresponsible owners of animals escape from penalties if a minor happens to be the keeper, as is often the case.
It is remarkable what a tremendous furore a proposal for a major road scheme causes in any locality. Equally remarkable is the number of "spec" builders who quickly make a fortune building new houses right up to the fringe of the motorway when it is completed. I agree with the Minister that objections must be taken into account, but frivolous objections must not be allowed to delay a major scheme.
There is no provision in the Bill for the appointment of more road safety officers. Local authorities have permissive powers in this respect. Unfortunately, many local authorities do not realise the tremendous bonus that can arise for the nation and for local citizens from the appointment


of a road safety officer. I hope that the Minister will consider introducing some strengthening powers in the Bill at least to give a further measure of encouragement to local authorities, if necessary by means of an incentive, to appoint road safety officers.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Angus Maude: I am glad to be the first speaker on this side to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) on his maiden speech. I do that most warmly. I thought, as I am sure that the whole House did, that it was an attractive, thoughtful speech with which his constituents will be delighted. I am sure that they as well as we shall be pleased to hear from him again.
I was glad that the former Parliamentary Secretary—the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown)—broke the mood of happy unanimity which prevailed between the two Front Benches at the opening of these proceedings, because I should have felt brusquer at having to do it myself. I recognise that some of the Bill contains much useful tidying up and modernising procedure. For that reason, I shall restrain myself from seeking to divide the House against the Bill tonight, though I regard much of the Bill as extraordinarily dangerous and, to me, repulsive.
I am not in the least surprised to hear that the Bill was initiated and drafted under the late Labour Government. That was exactly what I thought when I read the Bill. It contains most of the thinking of the old, and not by me regretted, Ministry of Transport—largely out of date, dedicated to the proposition that the creation and faster movement of traffic is more important than the people through whose countryside and environment the traffic moves. However, I find it surprising that a Conservative Government should have introduced the Bill in this form and even more surprising that the Bill should come from a Department calling itself "the Department of the Environment" in European Conservation Year.
I have certain reservations about a number of Clauses. Clauses 2–6 need careful examination in Committee. I have reservations about Clauses 37, 38

and 40. I have even more reservations about Clauses 46 and 49.
Clearly the most objectionable features of the Bill are Clauses 14–17. I could not possibly vote for the Third Reading of a Bill which still contained these Clauses in their present form unamended. It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development to say that the object of these Clauses is to speed up the building of major roads while at the same time preserving the right of amenity societies to object and not encroaching upon the rights of land and property owners. It is very doubtful whether these provisions will in the end speed up the building of motorways. In fact, it can be argued that they will have the reverse effect. They do prejudice the rights of property owners and they will certainly make it more difficult for individuals and amenity societies to develop their objections properly. I agree that it is the smaller bodies and individuals who will be most hurt.
I know that those enthusiasts whose only aim is to build as many new roads as fast as possible will feel that any provisions put in to safeguard the rights of property owners or those concerned with the landscape are excessive, but the fact is that the scales are already weighted in favour of the Government.
Let us consider what must happen at the moment. The Department works, the road construction units work, the county surveyors work, in an atmosphere of almost total secrecy. They say, with some reason, that what they are trying to do is to prevent planning blight.
Planning blight arises anyway. Planning blight has descended over a considerable area of my constituency in South Warwickshire long before we have got anywhere near a preferred route, because any time a man with surveyors' equipment or with bore-hole equipment appears, the local newspapers immediately publish what they assume to be the line of a motorway link or of the new Oxford-Birmingham motorway and it becomes impossible for anybody to sell a house there at a reasonable price until the scheme develops further. In one area any number of routes could blight property, though many of them might have been discarded by the Road Construc-


tion Unit or the highway authority some time before. Until the Minister finally makes up his mind and an Order for a preferred route is laid, the blight persists.
There is much to be said against the amount of secrecy that exists. Even now it is not easy, in the case of a motorway which may seriously affect the whole landscape over a long route, to prepare proper objections, including, perhaps, an alternative route, even in three months. Six weeks is ludicrous. My hon. Friend said that six weeks was the minimum and that for major schemes it might well be even more than three months, but the period should not be at the discretion of the Minister, who is already judge in his own cause of what he wants to do. It would have been more to the point if the Bill had stated that there should be a minimum of three months. That is not too much even for objections to comparatively minor schemes. It is certainly too little for the proper preparation of a case on a major special road.
In addition, the provision that the objectors must give notice if they wish to provide an alternative route, and also give notice of their objections in some detail at the time of making them, or within a period which the Minister shall lay down in the Order, makes life even more difficult for the potential objector and far too easy for the Department and the highway authority.
If people are given a period of six weeks, quite a lot of that time will be taken up in organising the local residents, and just informing them of what is happening. They will not automatically know. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West was right when he spoke about notices on telegraph poles. Even with an informed local Press, much of the six weeks will be taken up in simply alerting people to what is going on. Sometimes organising them requires the formation of a new local society to get the funds to carry through the objections at a public inquiry, and this takes time. It may be necessary to take professional advice, and perhaps to have alternative routes surveyed. A large amenity organisation may wish to get advice from quite high-level consultants, who cannot always be obtained at the drop of a hat.

They may not be free to look at the matter for a week or two.
The result is that the Bill will not speed up the total procedure in the way that my hon. Friend suggested. If I were advising residents in my constituency as to what they should do in view of the reduction in the time available for objection and the necessity to state all their objections right at the beginning, I should advise them to put down objections on every conceivable ground at the outset, so that they could not be caught short at a later stage. The National Farmers' Union, in a moderate and well-reasoned objection to much of the Bill, made exactly the same point.
There are two aspects here. First, people will object on many more grounds so that they will not be ruled out of court on some which did not occur to them at the outset. Second, if a reasonably long period for consultation is given before the matter goes to a public inquiry, many objections which the local residents advance at the outset can be cleared up and removed after explanations from the Department or the local authority.
I do not believe that the Bill will speed up the procedure. It may even slow it down. In any case, it is unjust. To enable the Secretary of State at his discretion to ignore objections at the compulsory purchase stage, simply because they go over a point which has been covered before, makes the Bill even more unjust. If the period for objection is reduced to six weeks, something which may not have cropped up, or on which objectors did not have adequate time to present a case and obtain witnesses for the first inquiry, is barred to them the second time. An objector who puts in an objection at the compulsory purchase stage on a ground which he has not adequately developed before will find that he is not allowed to develop it properly, even though a great deal of new evidence may have come up.
I am not very happy about the provision that objectors producing an alternative route must declare it. The Minister should make it quite clear that he will not require to have it in very great detail, because to require that in six weeks would be quite wrong. Simply to put a tentative line on a fairly small-scale map is


one thing, and no one would object to that, but to require any kind of detailed definition of a route, including the landscaping and so on, would be absurd. We have no right to expect citizens or amenity bodies to do that.
There is one point here in respect of which the Bill should be amended. I know that the Department will object strongly, but I believe that in the long run it would be in its interests. The Department asks in the Bill that the citizens shall put all their cards on the table and be shot down by the experts at a public inquiry, but the Department is allowed to work in complete secrecy and to give absolutely no details of the alternative routes which it has considered. It is required only to define and defend the preferred route and not the ones which it has considered and rejected. That is wrong. The public purse cannot be involved in much greater expense if the Department is required to give details of alternative routes, because all the work has been done on them before they have been rejected. If it has not been done, it is pretty lighthearted to reject other routes. The Department cannot have it both ways.
Not only would it make the procedure much more just if the Department were obliged to do that, but it would save a great deal of time and trouble for potential objectors and possibly speed up the whole matter. For one thing, a number of the alternative routes which have been considered and rejected will be identical with alternative routes put forward by objectors. If the Department can at a fairly early stage provide good reasons—costings, engineering difficulties or whatever they may be—to show that those routes are inadequate, it will not only save the trouble of arguing out that route again at the public inquiry but it may save objectors a great deal of money spent on surveying and trying to cost that route before they go to a public inquiry.

Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman is raising a very important point. It is one that exercised me when I had responsibilities for these matters. But to some extent it will be met, in that I believe that information can be made available to objectors by the Department. I should like confirmation of that from the Under-

Secretary. Before the hon. Gentleman presses what is, on the surface, the very attractive view that the public should be told all the routes examined before the final line is put forward as the Ministry or local highway authority recommendation, will he tell us what he would do about the very real problem of blighting all the properties that would be affected? I remember one case in which I think the hon. Gentleman was personally interested, and in which I had a very difficult decision to make. About 17 possible routes were taken and it would have been very serious for all the persons living on them if the routes had been published. They had no idea which was the likely one. Many of the 17 obviously would not have been supported by anyone, but if they had all been printed that would have made difficulties for the properties concerned

Mr. Maude: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Of course I take the point he makes. I was not proposing that, in all circumstances, it should be required that the Ministry should invariably publish all the alternative routes which have been rejected. But what I do believe is that there should be an obligation to provide information and costings of alternative routes with some kind of cost analysis and engineering reports if required by an objector who wants, perhaps, to put that forward as an alternative route of his own.
The point about planning blight is that nowadays the word gets round so quickly that one gets planning blight whether the Minister announces his alternative routes or not. I have been approached by constituents over practically every square yard of the 400 square miles of my constituency, telling me that a motorway link or a motorway was going to go through the ends of their gardens. The alarm has often turned out to have sprung from the Ordnance Survey checking bench marks with ordinary surveying equipment, but in some cases there have been surveyors examining possible alternative routes. The idea that one can still conceal the activities of these people in the state of alarm and alertness which the public has developed in respect of road development is absurd. One cannot. An enormous number of potential routes are being subjected to planning blight from the outset.
I do not want to make Committee points at this stage, since it is the principle of this part of this Bill to which I object, but I want to call the attention of my hon. Friend to Clause 17, about deviation of line. It is, I believe, wrongly drawn and misconceived. It provides, I understand, that the centre line may be moved by a distance of up to 55 yards, at any point. I think this is the wrong way round, since 55 yards may mean nothing in a particular scheme, but where one has a landscape of very high amenity value it may make nonsense of a balanced piece of landscape architecture which may have been agreed by the objectors.
Moreover, the same permitted deviation would not be appropriate on different sections even of the same motorway. It may well be that 55 yards is quite insignificant on one stretch but in another kind of landscape it may completely wreck the landscape balance of the scheme. This Clause should be phrased with the intent the other way round, so that the permitted deviation is laid down in each Order and may vary for different stretches of the scheme. Then no deviation should be allowed except what is laid down in each Order. This would be a much more intelligent, just and sensible way of doing it, and I hope we shall consider it in Committee.
I hope that the Government will look again at the procedure for inquiry. I think that they have gone too far in this. The scales are weighted against the citizen and the amenity society already and to some extent against the property owner. I seriously suggest that we want to be very careful here. People are more alert to the dangers. They are not now prepared unhesitatingly to accept that the creation of fast movement of traffic is the overriding priority. The preservation of the environment and the lives and villages and homes and views of people who live in the countryside are of equal, if not greater, importance.
I do not want to argue about whether we should have a large motorway programme, although I suggest that in many cases it is an ill-conceived programme, because we know that, despite all the talk about motorways simply diverting traffic and enabling it to move faster, they create new traffic, leaving very much the same

amount of traffic behind on other highways. They can, in a small country and in a small landscape, completely blight an enormous area of countryside if they are not carefully done. It is the careful landscaping by agreement with local interests and experts that requires time and consultation and good will on both sides to get right. I believe that the Bill does not do enough to get it right, and I hope that it will be considerably amended in Committee.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude). The Bill really sets out to alter a number of Acts and consolidate them into a workable project. I am worried by much the same thing that he is worried about. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill says clearly:
The main purposes of the Bill are to reduce procedural delays in the construction and improvement of trunk roads and motorways;
Being a London Member, I am particularly interested in the problems of motorways in London. In considering procedural delays, one must remember that the people owning property and houses in London realise the size of the problem. In London for nearly 10 years we have been discussing motorways and where they shall go.
I am convinced that somewhere tucked away in the pigeonholes of the G.L.C. is a plan which it will finally produce for the positions of the London motorways and that all the other plans which are produced from time to time, including plans by different local authorities, will finally be shot down by the G.L.C., which will produce its own original plan and say, "This is the plan we shall introduce. We hope you will all agree to it."
I am a member of the council of the London Borough of Wandsworth which took over, in co-operation, the old Metropolitan Borough of Battersea. We had the problems of the motorways ten years ago. Today people living in houses that are to be considered as lying on part of the motorway route are still suffering from blight. They still cannot sell their houses. Many people in Wandsworth are affected. One fast road has been completed called the Wandsworth Bridge


southern approach. It finishes opposite Wandsworth Prison. From there it becomes an unclassified road. We thus have streams of traffic coming along the southern approach—the motorway—into an unclassified road. The people along that road, Trinity Road, have no idea when a plan is going to be produced to show where the new road leading to Norbury is to be. On behalf of all those who suffer from blight, particularly in Wandsworth, I ask the Minister to consider that people do want to know when a plan is going to be produced and when it is going to be put into operation.
Time factors of six weeks, three months or six months have been mentioned. It is grossly unfair that people who have bought small houses—and some of these houses are very small—should be faced with a planning edict after three or six months telling them, "We are sorry but we are taking your house. We are giving you fair compensation". That "fair compensation" does not enable them to buy a house of a similar kind somewhere else in that locality or outside London.
This is why we have to examine these Clauses very carefully. I am sure that when authorities like the G.L.C. consider these matters they are not dealing so much with people as with straight lines on a map. This is one of our problems in London; we have the threat of the Ringway, the inner box and these other proposals which will upset our domestic living.
The other problem relates to Clause 25 dealing with skips. This is a problem which is becoming more urgent in London. We are finding on narrow roads that there may be two skips parked opposite one another or parked on one side with cars on the other. The result is that there is about ten or twelve feet left for traffic to pass. Anyone who lives in London knows that most of the roads are being used as major roads. Drivers are using them to avoid the main traffic arteries. The result is that when these builders' skips are placed outside houses there is congestion, collisions, accidents and complete chaos.
The Bill contains the good suggestion that builder's skips should be painted with special reflecting paint. One of the amusing things is that the Borough of Wandsworth has a large number of these

skips which we place in the roads for the removal of all sorts of material and refuse. We find that a practice is growing up whereby people are taking our skips with their vehicles. Often the borough inspectors go to look for a skip and find that it has been carted off by someone else. It is never seen again. The borough has lost a considerable number of these in this way.
Perhaps the Minister could consider whether skips should be licensed or numbered so that this sort of skullduggery does not occur. There are a lot of people in this business and it is easy for anyone to come along at night, hoist the skip on to their lorry and drive away. These skips are valuable. Some people say that they do not want the skips on public highways, but they are a great advantage in many London streets provided they are not parked opposite one another. We need to see that there is some control over them. One advantage is that the people living in these streets are able to dump their rubbish in the skips. During the last dustmen's strike they were very useful because people were able to put the rubbish into them. It is no advantage to the builder to have the rubbish but it is a great advantage to the people living there.
These skips can be a menace, but they are not so great a menace as the other vehicles parked in our streets. I am sorry that the Minister responsible for the Bill has not looked into this matter. The Minister for Local Government and Development has always been interested in road safety and the subject of lorries parked in streets. I am surprised that the Minister has not attempted to tackle this problem. In many of our London streets we find heavy articulated lorries parked, considerably reducing the width. We have vehicles containing six private cars for export parked in ordinary unclassified London roads. I would have thought that in such a Bill there could have been some provision to deal with this problem. I know that the Minister is keen on the subject.
In giving a general blessing to the Bill, I hope that the Government will consider these questions. The motorways are upsetting many thousands of people in Wandsworth and we want a decision to be made by the G.L.C. so that we will know where the roads are to go. Until


then we cannot intervene to obtain alterations.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I would like to begin by apologising in advance to the Minister, due to a prior engagement, for having to leave without hearing his reply. I should like first to cross the t's and dot the i's of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry) about lorries and cars. Lorries are not only parked on the streets but on the pavements. In narrow roads the local residents cannot get to their houses. I suggest that in Committee we look at Clause 25 to see whether we cannot widen it so as to include a provision to bring these vehicles under the same control as skips. I feel sure that the legal advisers of the Ministry could amend the Bill to cover this.
This is not just a question of annoyance and inconvenience to residents. Hon. Members who represent industrial parts of the country know that in these narrow roads the space left is often less than 12 feet or 15 feet and it is impossible for fire engines, ambulances or police cars to get down them. The Bill says that the police shall have power to take action, but we all know that the police are undermanned and underpaid. While they may have the power to enforce the law when illegal parking takes place, certainly in some parts of London there are insufficient policemen to do this. In working-class areas lorries can be found parked on the pavements and causing considerable obstruction. Strangely it does not happen in the more salubrious neighbourhoods of Chelsea, Westminster and the better parts of West London because the police stop it. I hope that they will also be able to stop it in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South and mine. If they cannot, the Bill will not have much effect. Perhaps more police are needed for the purpose or it should be made clear that action can be taken by them.
I now wish to refer to a local matter. No one would think that we in West Ham would be bothered by cattle, but we are. Clause 27 makes the keeper instead of the owner of certain animals liable to be penalised if those animals stray on the highway. Straying animals

is a hazard which arises mainly in the country areas. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) referred to his area. I represent a Stratford—"Stratford-upon-East". We also have a great theatre and a great playwright, Joan Littlewood, who has put on some marvellous shows.
"Stratford-upon-East", which is right in the centre of London, has a straying cattle problem. The animals stray from Epping Forest and Wanstead Flats. My constituents do not have large gardens, but some of them have little cabbage patches at the back of the houses. They may come out one morning and find the cows eating their cabbages. [Laughter.] That may be laughable and perhaps not very serious. It depends whether they eat other than the cabbages. The danger is that the cattle stray across roads which are very busy with traffic, and children who use Wanstead Flats and Epping Forest because they are short of play spaces are liable to follow the cattle and be a hazard on the road.
Will it be possible for the local authorities to take action in this matter under the Bill? If not, I ask the Minister to give some thought to it. The City of London Corporation—and here I pay a sincere tribute to it—does a magnificent job in looking after Epping Forest and Wanstead Flats under a trust deed which is 400 or 500 years old under which the Corporation must guarantee and safeguard the right of farmers to allow their cattle to go anywhere unhindered. That might have been all right 300 or 400 years ago, but the City Corporation, the local authorities and all the people living in the vicinity feel that it is a bit much that a cow or bull or some other animal should be able to force its way into people's gardens. I agree that this is most unusual, but it seems that no one can do much about it.
The City of London wants to do something about it, but I understand that it is precluded from doing so by the Measure to which I have referred. I ask the Minister to consult the City of London Corporation and the authorities concerned with a view to amending Clause 27 in Committee, if it needs amending to deal with this situation. Perhaps in adjacent urban industrial areas cattle should be tethered or not allowed to come within a certain distance of the highway. If the


Minister takes steps to deal with the matter, the people concerned will be very pleased. If it is not possible to deal with it under the Bill, perhaps he will have a word with the City Corporation to see whether a Clause can be put in the City of London (Various Powers) Act to deal with it.
I hone that the Minister will excuse me if I leave because I have another engagement. Perhaps he will write to me on the subject or deal with it in his reply.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Tom King: I apologise for not being present to hear my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development open the debate. Unfortunately, like the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), I shall have to leave before the end of the debate.
My purpose in intervening is to raise in this Bill an important constituency point which had previously escaped my attention. I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for West Ham, North into the cabbage patch. I wish to lead him through the orchards beyond the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen), who I understand made his maiden speech in the debate, and into the neighbouring constituency of Bridgwater. The point I wish to raise has been brought to my attention in a leaflet produced by the National Farmers' Union, and it concerns obligations in connection with flooding. I wish to ask the Minister for certain assurances upon the matter.
Construction of a major motorway, the M5, will very shortly start across the plain of Sedgemoor. I do not know whether it is generally recognised that over 135,000 acres of Somerset are below sea level. In this area there is a major drainage problem which has exercised the attention of the House since the days of Henry II. The motorway will be a massive undertaking and a major engineering project going across extremely difficult terrain.
I am most concerned about the points which the N.F.U. makes in its document concerning inadequate Government assurances about the disposal of surface water from motorways and responsibility when flooding results from the presence of a motorway across such an area. There is

a £1 million scheme under construction to try to improve the drainage of Sedge-moor. The presence of a motorway in this area will have very serious implications for the lie of the land. This is a natural moor of pretty doubtful substance at an average height of 25 ft. below the normal high tide level. The construction of the motorway, which will involve the largest earth-moving operation ever carried out in the South West, may change the traditional drainage channels around this area.
It is against that background that I am most concerned that the provisions should be adequate to help those of my constituents who may face a serious threat of increased flooding. With the construction of a motorway with metal surfaces there is a very different run-off rate during rain, and this may alter the drainage patterns. Sedgemoor can only be drained at low tide in the Bristol Channel. At high tide all the drainage gates and sluices have to be closed. Hon. Members will appreciate the problem this presents to my constituents and to people in other areas who will likewise be affected. There should be adequate provision to ensure that those who suffer for the necessary presence of a motorway in their area should have recourse to adequate compensation if their livelihoods are affected by flooding. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the attention which I can see is being paid to these points, and I hope that he will give an assurance on this matter when he replies.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I apologise to the House for continually popping in and out during the debate, but we are receiving visitations from large numbers of people on various matters which require our attention elsewhere.
There is a concentration in certain Clauses on speeding up the procedures for inquiries into applications for the development of highways and planning approval. I am concerned that this attempt to speed up the process of public inquiry will not result in the rights of the ordinary citizen being further trampled into the ground. People are hostile to planning under the Town and Country Planning Act and the various Highways Acts, not because they are hostile to


better highways, flyovers and easier and more convenient access, but because they are denied the proper opportunities and facilities for putting forward their objections.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) referred to Clause 2 and the provisions for the protection of highways from flood. I join him in many of his remarks. A large area in my constituency lies on a flood plain 18 to 19 ft. above the height of the River Thames at its normal level and considerably below the level of the river at full flood. In these low-lying areas my constituents suffer the most nauseating and distressing experience of sewage coming through the sewers attached to the highway on to the highway and into their homes. Will the provisions of the Bill enable the London Borough of Bexley to take remedial action to protect its highway and to protect my constituents from the filth that comes through the sewer via the highway into their homes?
Part II deals with a question which has caused great concern throughout the country, the use by building contractors of skips to collect rubble to take away later on. All hon. Members will be aware from personal experience and from representations made by their constituents of the many serious accidents that have resulted from skips being left in dangerous positions unprotected by lighting and colouring. I give an unreserved welcome to that part of the Bill, which will greatly strengthen the power of local authorities to deal with the growing menace of skips which are left scattered about the highway.
I am pleased to see Clause 29, which deals with powers relating to retaining walls near streets. Ordinary, decent families in my constituency have been put to great inconvenience and have suffered great mental stress and pecuniary loss as a result of the erection of a retaining wall. Will the Minister explain why in Clause 29 provision is made for a fine not exceeding £20 for the erection of a retaining wall in contravention to the provisions of the Clause, whereas the Bill contains no power to enable the authorities to require the retaining wall to be removed and put into a safer and more convenient place? I understand that the town and country planning law also is

defective in this respect. It is quite wrong to ask Parliament for powers to deal with this problem, but not to ask for the power which would really solve it—power to command the removal of an offending retaining wall.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) and I had correspondence during his period of office as Joint Parliamentary Secretary about objections to highway proposals. I failed to get satisfaction from my hon. Friend, as no doubt I shall fail to get satisfaction from the Government. To enshrine in the Bill a proposal that the objection period should be reduced from three months to six weeks merely compounds what is already a disgraceful situation. A citizen who is faced with a proposal by the local authority to erect a flyover adjacent to his property is already at a grave disadvantage. The local authority has all the resources of its organisation—an organisation paid for, incidentally, by the poor unfortunate ratepayers—to prepare its plans. When there is a public inquiry, the poor citizen sits there like a humble supplicant, and there across the room are rank upon rank of local authority professional witnesses ready to tear to shreds every word he utters. I cannot support the proposal to reduce the period of time in which the poor objector, with his inadequate facilities, may prepare his case. No doubt the hon. Gentleman in his reply will say, "The hon. Gentleman must realise that that proposal was prepared when the Labour Government were in office". I do not mind who is responsible. If my own Government had put forward this proposal, I would have been equally critical and would have opposed it with my vote. That is what I intend to do in due course.
The provision also goes on to say that if the objector in complaining about the siting of the highway authority's proposal for a fly-over or road, or whatever it may be, wishes to suggest an alternative route, he must prepare that scheme in some detail and present it to the public inquiry, and indeed to the highway authority before the inquiry. This is not good enough. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State in his reply will spell out what proposals the Government intend to put before Parliament in the immediate future to enable the ordinary citizen who objects


to this type of proposal to be given financial and professional assistance similar to the Legal Aid Scheme—indeed better than that scheme which is not all that helpful. Bearing in mind all the extra burdens and liabilities that lie on the shoulders of ordinary people, it is wrong that further restriction of an individual's rights should be embodied in the Bill without any compensatory factors to allow him access to funds and professional advice with which to prepare his case. I will oppose that provision to the best of my ability, and I shall ask my hon. Friends, and indeed hon. Gentlemen opposite who have any consideration for the rights of the individual, to join me in opposing the Government.
I turn to Part III of the Bill which deals with compulsory purchase and with compensation. I must confess that I was somewhat surprised that the present Government, which have pledged themselves to extend freedom and all the rest, should come forward with proposals, not to reduce the powers of compulsory acquisition, but to extend them. I am sure that we shall be told in the winding-up speech why the Government are extending these powers. It is right that we should have an explanation when we bear in mind what the Conservative Party have said on this matter on previous occasions.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) spoke in his excellent speech about planning blight and of the difficulties that can arise where no land is taken, where no property is affected, but where action by an authority leads to a planning blight on the poor unfortunate householder who has no redress at law for compensation and must bear the burdens on his own shoulders. I am amazed that this Bill should seek to extend the area of compulsory purchase, but should contain no provision to deal with the vexed problem of compensation for blight and injurious affection. May we be told why the Bill contains no such proposals? We should be given an answer this evening. We may be told that this is not the right sort of Bill to embody that type of legislation. Then let the House be given a clear indication that the Government will not be too long delayed in bringing forward a measure to deal with this social evil.
I remember many speeches by Conservative Members when in opposition

about this iniquitous situation. Now is the opportunity for them to do something about it. It is not sufficient to allow local authorities to go forward with all sorts of desirable schemes which in the end are paid for with the suffering of the ordinary individual occupying his ordinary, humble home. If society wants social improvements, then society must pay for them. I hope this Government will live up to their words about the welfare of the ordinary individual, words which they have used on many occasions in the past, and that they will come forward with some positive proposals to deal with the situation.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I wish to apologise to the House for not being present during most of the debate, but I had to see some of my constituents who had come to the House.
There are one or two particular provisions in the Bill which I should like to discuss. I welcome the power given in Clause 25 for the removal of builders' skips. But may I inquire why this provision is limited purely to builders' skips? Should not the Bill be more explicit and admit that these skips are often used for rubbish and waste material for which a local authority may be responsible? Will my hon. Friend in his reply say whether this expression is as limited as it appears to be, or whether it is simply the name he has chosen for this type of container?
I wish to follow the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) because I, too, have a constituency that borders on Epping Forest. While Clause 27 deals with the dangers of straying animals and Clause 22 deals with highway authorities having the right to control the "hazards of nature" and surely a straying animal is such a hazard. I hope that these provisions will break the deadlock which has existed for so long between the recognition of commoners' rights and the need to safeguard the users of highways and roads in the Epping Forest area. In my own constituency straying animals have been a source of considerable concern. Only last year a motor cyclist was killed after colliding with a stray cow. This problem becomes even more acute in areas where there is a great deal of heavy traffic. Not only is there danger from life


and limb, but also damage to gardens and other places. Although we must respect the rights which have been possessed by commoners for many years, I feel that those rights must now be tempered with regard to the changing circumstances of Epping Forest because of its proximity to Greater London.
Reference is made in the Bill to the New Forest, and my brother the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson) would have been able to tell the House that in the New Forest the most extensive fencing has reduced the number of accidents caused by straying animals to an absolute minimum. I hope that the Bill will empower highway authorities and perhaps the local authorities with responsibilities for Epping Forest to put up fencing even if something more positive cannot be done in the way of compensating owners.
I hope that the words in Clause 22(1), with regard to providing fences on the highway, will get over the question of removing any part of Epping Forest, however narrow, for fencing. If fencing could be placed along the edge of the highway, there would be no loss of amenity to the conservators of Epping Forest. I hope that the Bill in giving these new powers, will allow the City Corporation and the conservators of Epping Forest finally to produce a solution acceptable to all parties. Such a solution should maintain Epping Forest's rustic beauty and also free many people from the fear of further tragic accidents being caused by animals straying on to roads at night.
In conclusion I would like to refer to Clauses 52 and 53. It is probably too much to hope that they are an earnest of the Government's intention to bring in a network of lorry routes, but at the same time we must recognise that heavy lorries are using roads which were never designed for that type of transport. We know that such lorries in terms of noise, pollution from exhaust, and vibration by virtue of their sheer weight, cause a great deal of damage to road surfaces and concern to people living in small towns or villages or in residential suburban areas, such as my own constituency. It is high time that we thought about introducing a system of lorry routes in this country which would be designated for heavy

lorries, and which would take them out of villages, towns and residential areas.
It is probably too much to hope that Clauses 52 and 53 are the beginnings of this sort of thinking on the Government's part, but I hope that they are and that the Minister will reply on this point.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Tom Bradley: I add my congratulations to those already offered to the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) on his maiden speech. He spoke with great sincerity, assurance and conviction. He made some very interesting points and I am sure that the House will look forward to hearing him speak again on behalf of the constituents of the delightful area which he represents.
I could have wished that my maiden appearance at the Box had coincided with a more controversial and exciting Bill. It is idle for any of us to pretend that the Measure which we are discussing is calculated to set the nation on fire or even to provoke a one-day stoppage. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) did his best to raise the temperature, but he had to admit that he was unlikely to inspire sufficient support in the Division Lobby on behalf of his efforts. Nevertheless, the Bill contains some provisions which we shall need to examine with great care.
The centrepiece of the Bill is undoubtedly Clause 14, whereby the period during which objections to a draft order or scheme for a new highway or major improvement is to be reduced from three months to six weeks from the publication of the notice. I listened with interest to the Minister when he explained that the six weeks was meant to be a minimum period. As one of my hon. Friends pointed out, the minimum very often becomes the maximum. Whichever way we look at this reduction, it represents a further limitation on the rights of an individual to lodge an objection to the familiar and relentless demands of urban society where they impinge on private territory. Furthermore, in the event of a local inquiry, any objector who argues for an alternative route must provide sufficient information in favour of it not less than 14 days before the inquiry, otherwise the Secretary of State is empowered to disregard it.
Clause 15 gives the Secretary of State power to confirm part of the Order or scheme whilst deferring consideration of the rest of it. Both parts will then be treated as separate entities. That could lead to some very anomalous positions, with part of a scheme being accepted and the remainder being rejected. I accept that in most instances some parts would go ahead whereas the rest would become perhaps subject to modification. But in this kind of decision there is a danger of pre-empting a final judgment in the matter.
Surely the most important need is for much fuller information to be made available to the public to enable them to protect their interests. Firstly, they should be made aware of the proposals at the earliest possible date. Secondly, they should be given a clearer idea of the physical shape the proposals will take. Thirdly, they should be informed in the plainest possible terms of their right to object and the manner in which they can proceed to go about it.
It is not good enough to tuck away in the public notices column of the local newspaper a draft order, couched in legalistic language and printed in the smallest type available, the effect of which may be to alter drastically the lives and environment of citizens or the business prospects of traders. If Parliament intends to put further pressures on the individual to achieve speedier implementation of road building, then the least we can do is to ensure that no one affected is unaware of his rights. It ought not to be beyond the capability of administrators to organise a more personal form of notification and description of intentions than exists at present. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the Government are considering this point with a view to extending the manner and the method of conveying information over a wider area and on a more personal basis.
As the debate has revealed, there can be little quarrel with most of the other provisions in the Bill. With the greatest respect to parliamentary draftsmen, the title of the Bill ought perhaps to have been "Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill". There can be little quarrel with the provisions involving public safety.
Clause 30 makes it an offence to carry out building operations which give rise to the risk of serious bodily harm to persons in the street. Although I noted with interest what the Minister said, it is not clear when reading the Bill that the term "building operation" covers scaffolding. Unsafe scaffolding has caused some nasty accidents in recent years, including the death of a diplomat. The powers of control over scaffolding seem rather vague. If the Clause is intended to cover scaffolding operations, then the recommended maximum fine of £100 seems rather low. I agree with all of my hon. Friends who have spoken on that part of the Bill which deals with skips left in the street.
Clause 39 extends highway authorities' powers to acquire land in advance of immediate requirements. As the Minister indicated, the creation of blight could be avoided in some cases by acquiring land at much earlier stages than is at present possible under the existing state of the law. Clauses 40 and 43 have some bearing on this tricky and complicated problem, where a very finely balanced judgment will have to be made. I noted with particular interest what the Minister said about possibly introducing, at a later stage, measures to bring forward purchasing procedures. I hope that the Under-Secretary will take that matter a stage further when he replies.
Is this, however, to be the full extent of the Government's plans to tackle blight? The Secretary of State has been sounding off and making noises about this problem ever since he took office. If the full extent of the Government's proposals is embodied in the Bill, when is it intended that they will honour their pledges in this respect? When we consider the Bill in Committee, we shall be looking for something more positive and far reaching in this regard than we have at present.
These are all probing points which can more properly be discussed at later stages. Despite the intervention of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, there has been a large measure of agreement on the necessity for the Bill. It will come as no surprise to hon. Gentlemen opposite that we do not intend to divide the House on the Bill. But we shall return to many features in detail and with some vigour when we embark on the Committee stage.

7.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I must congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. This is not the most controversial Bill on which to make a debut from the Opposition Front Bench, but there can be few more difficult Bills when one considers its complexity and attempts to retain in one's mind the number of Clauses and competing problems dealt with in this Measure. The hon. Gentleman is to be applauded for the way in which he set out his case.
I do not want to give the impression that I have forgotten the notable contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen), but perhaps I might say a few words about my hon. Friend when I deal with the points that he raised.
I see no way of dealing with the numerous matters raised by hon. Gentlemen in global terms. Instead, I will go through them and attempt to answer them. Many have been raised several times, and I will try not to repeat my answers.
The hon. Member for Leicester, North-East saw difficulties in the limits of deviation dealt with in Clause 17. This is the power which is to be included in an order for the making of a line of a road to deviate the centre line by 55 yards within the scope of the provision laid down in the original order. In other words, anyone looking at the proposed line of the road will see the point at which it can deviate one way or the other.
It could be said that this is another monstrous infringement of the rights of individuals and that we should not do it. However, the hon. Gentleman and any of his hon. Friends taking that view should bear in mind the words of their right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), who saw the problems at first hand and was obliged to make decisions which helped him to understand that the purpose of introducing this provision is to assist people and nothing more. In order to move a line slightly to accommodate objections put to an inspector at a public inquiry, it is necessary to have this small flexibility. At the moment, there is no flexibility. If a 20-mile stretch of road is being considered, it falls to the

Minister to decide whether to make the order. If someone would be helped by moving the line a little, all that the Minister can do is not make the line for the whole 20-mile stretch. He therefore faces the agonising choice of holding up what might be a multi-million pound investment of taxpayers' money in a major road which is clamoured for by hon. Members on all sides, or taking into account the interests of one individual. He has no other power. It follows that this provision is a very valuable protection for individuals and will enable a human approach in the road building programme to be greatly extended.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to Clause 30, which deals with building operations affecting public safety. The simple answer to his question is that "any building operation" includes scaffolding. The hon. Gentleman's point about a fine of £100 can be looked at in Committee.
I was surprised at the hon. Gentleman's slightly belligerent tone when he remonstrated with the Government on compensation. No one would suggest that this is not a serious and difficult matter, and my hon. Friend spelt out the Government's concern about it. Indeed, it is one of our Election pledges. Compensation is a difficult and far-ranging subject, but it is quite wrong to criticise the Government for not finding solutions to problems which eluded right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite during their long period in office. However, we intend to make a statement in the not-too-distant future about the way in which we hope to fulfil our pledge.
I turn to the speech of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park. His contribution bore the stamp of great experience in these matters, and it must not be forgotten that he played a big part in the thinking on the drafting of this legislation. It was not that the right hon. Gentleman wanted Draconian powers to speed up the road-building programme. It was more a matter of the right hon. Gentleman having to make these detailed decisions and coming to what I consider to be the right conclusion that it is necessary to get a degree of flexibility into the available procedures in order to protect the small people who were referred to time and time again in the speeches of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Let me put the matter in some prespective. Those of us who are responsible in my Department on the road-building side know that it is not a matter which is looked at askance by Members of Parliament. It is not unpopular or unwanted. The continual theme concerns the need for early decisions and more of them and for more expenditure on roads in all parts of the country. The overwhelming consensus is that we need more roads and need them quickly. The only disciplines ever suggested are the protection of the individual and the scarcity of financial resources.
We are discussing here a range of procedures by which a more human approach can be brought to this problem, and the right hon. Gentleman put specific questions to me which I will attempt to answer. He asked whether the Bill dealt with public transport, and whether it was the last word of the Government on this important subject. However, this is not a comprehensive transport Measure. It is a Highways Bill—

Mr. Mulley: I did not ask whether it dealt with public transport. I said that one of the problems of public transport is priority and that that involves road planning. That is the aspect with which I am concerned. Have local authorities these necessary powers?

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman asked about bus lane priorities, and that point must be seen in the context of the road passenger transport problem. Certainly it is more appropriately dealt with there than in legislation of this sort. We are apprised of the urgency of that side of transport activity. This Bill does not pretend to deal with that problem, but certainly we are aware of it.
The right hon. Gentleman's next question was about the powers of local authorities over parking. The same comment applies to that. This is not the right legislation for it, but we are very conscious of the need.
The purpose of this legislation is to blend the efficiency necessary in a massive annual multi-million pound investment with the private rights of individuals, and we have introduced provisions in the Bill which will be to the advantage of the individual and not against it.
The right hon. Gentleman then asked whether the Bill was a manifestation of the Government's road programme. However, I am sure that he appreciates that that is a different subject upon which we shall be making a statement shortly. It is not relevant to this debate.
I must now congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wells on his maiden speech. I know that the House will join me in expressing our sorrow on hearing my hon. Friend's references to the ill-health of his predecessor, Commander Lynch Maydon. We are extremely sorry to hear about it, and our good wishes go to him.
My hon. Friend spoke about the appalling highways in his constituency, and there is a familiar ring to that complaint. I have heard it before, and I will not mention my own constituency.
I was impressed by my hon. Friend's compassion for elderly people who live in the villages of his constituency and in rural areas throughout the country. However, instead of expressing the worries and anxieties of old people who live in traffic-congested villages, though in no way wanting to ignore them, I wish that it would be remembered that one of the purposes of the roads that we are discussing is to take the congestion out of village streets by building by-passes round them, thus bringing a massive improvement to the environment and amenities of the people whose plight concerns my hon. Friend. The developments envisaged in this Bill will all help to reduce the accidents and noise of which my hon. Friend complains. My hon. Friend also referred to the loneliness of old people living in villages. It is to be hoped that our inquiry into rural bus services will be valuable in this connection. I share the general remarks which have been made. I believe that it was a compassionate and realistic speech. I am sure that the whole House looks forward to many further interventions from my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown), with experience from recently holding office in the Ministry of Transport, was in slight difficulty when he said that he was optimistic and hopeful that I should be able to come to the Box at the end of my period in Government and say that I had


seen the road building programme expand to twice its present level over five years and to six times its previous level over ten years. The hon. Gentleman nods, which I take to be complete understanding that that is what he said. The Labour Government produced a White Paper on the road-building programme shortly before leaving office showing that their best possible targets were an 8½ per cent. increase to 1974–75 and 3 per cent. thereafter. So the hon. Gentleman is at one with me in believing that his Government would not do anything like as well as this Government.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Clause 14, which was referred to with great force and compassion by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), raising the whole problem of the effect of reducing the present statutory three-months period of objection to the making of a line for a road to a minimum period of six weeks. I accept that it is possible, as a debating point, to say that this means that the Draconian forces of modern road building are moving in. But I defy anybody to say, with his hand on his heart, that that is what he honestly believes will happen. It will not. The people responsible for administering these procedures, whether it be the officials of the Department, the people in the road construction units, the local consultants, the local authorities, or politicians on both sides, simply would not tolerate a situation where powers of this kind were used to infringe private rights. Everybody in this House must know that to be the case.
On the other hand, there are numerous occasions on which it will be to everybody's advantage to shorten the period to six weeks. The first effect is that we shall still have a three-months period, and, in addition, six weeks' notice of the holding of the public inquiry, so that we shall have four-and-a-half months. Our proposal is that in non-controversial areas, where few objections are outstanding, it might be advantageous to everybody to have a shorter period—six weeks' objection period and six weeks following to give notice of the public inquiry.
I will give the House an example. Let us consider a road scheme of considerable length—say, 20 miles. If the whole scheme is acceptable, after a public in-

quiry, with the exception of a half-mile stretch which the Minister or the officials responsible desire to switch slightly beyond the 55 yards facility available, the Minister responsible would have the option to allow the 19½ miles to go on under the powers in the Bill, but, in the context of the other half-mile where all the information was available—where everybody had argued about it and examined it and there had been a public inquiry—to shorten the procedures to only six weeks before going through the new procedures for the deviation from the half-mile which he wants to alter. It must be in everyone's interest to speed up the procedures in that kind of situation. That is the flexibility which the Bill gives. That would be the kind of occasion upon which its powers would be used. It is unrealistic to pretend that anybody is trying to steam-roller major road building schemes through the House against the wishes of the small minority affected by them. That is not the way that it would work.

Mr. Bob Brown: I am sure that, like other hon. Members, the Under-Secretary must have had the heartfelt letter from the constituent who realises too late, at the end of the statutory period, that he had a right to object. If what the hon. Gentleman said in his opening remarks is carried out, and individuals are informed individually, I am sure that no one would object to shortening the period to six weeks. But on major schemes the hon. Gentleman knows well enough that six weeks really means nothing.

Mr. Heseltine: I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I am trying to make the point that, in the context of major schemes, the powers would not be used. The objection periods might be greatly extended. We might regard three months as totally insufficient for the purpose and, coupled with the additional publicity, we would be in a position to give greater prominence to major schemes. But we are talking about the other end of the scheme—a deviation which, in everybody's interest, should go forward more quickly.
I think that everybody will bear in mind the problems, to which we have had constant reference in the debate and which we all know about from our postbags, of the blight occasioned by delays. Therefore, if it is possible, without hurting anybody, to alleviate blight by shortening


delays we are protecting people in the way that hon. Members have been arguing that we should try to do.

Mr. Maude: I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that it is not just a question whether the Department will apply these new rules fairly, but that justice must also be seen to be done so that people will not feel that the scales are being loaded further against them. Would it not be better to specify in the Bill a minimum time for each class of scheme? For example, a minimum of six weeks for a minor scheme, so much for a principal road and so much for a special road?

Mr. Heseltine: My first reaction is that I do not dissent from the thought behind my hon. Friend's question, because that is the thought which will influence people responsible for exercising these powers. The Bill is designed to give precisely that flexibility. We can look at this point in Committee. I am not sure that we would be able to satisfy ourselves about the definitions required without introducing another complicated set of procedures which would baffle people even more. Nevertheless, this is the kind of point which my hon. Friend, if he is selected, will no doubt raise in Committee. It is an interesting point.
I want to create in people's minds the firm view that these powers will be used to help people, not to override them. I believe that hon. Members who share in the difficult business of exercising these powers will understand that what I am saying reflects the reality of the way these problems are resolved.
I will not go through all the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon. I think that, in the tone of what I have said, I have covered a number of them. We can look at the details in Committee.
My hon. Friend raised one general important point concerning alternative routes and information which will be given about them. I am pleased to clarify the position. The Department will always provide factual information about routes based on research and costs. Objectors will be able to come and ask for the details which my hon. Friend suggested should be available. They are available, and we shall be pleased to make them available to objectors.
The hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry) raised the question of builders' skips. I agree that they are of great value and efficiency in the building industry. The scheme considered for introduction in this legislation has been the subject of consultation with the building industry. It will be controlled by a licensing system. We can consider the details in Committee. However, it will be a step forward in a valuable modern technique which has been developing.
I do not believe that we should try to couple it at this stage with the problem of large lorries parked in side streets. Hon. Members on both sides are understandably anxious about this problem. The local authorities already have power to deal with this matter. A number of experiments are being conducted in conjunction with local authorities to see what can be done about lorry parks and so on. As I say, the power already exists and it is for local authorities to decide whether they want to use it. We should not confuse the valuable technological rationalisation in the use of builders' skips with the parking of large lorries.
The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) asked whether I would consult the City of London Corporation about straying animals. I am informed that this would not be an appropriate matter for the Highways Bill. But the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that, when the Animals Bill reaches the Floor of the House, he will have an opportunity of raising that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) raised the issue, first brought to our attention by the N.F.U., of flooding. I refer my hon. Friend to Clause 21, and Schedule 2. He will find that, in addition to the powers which highway authorities have to construct drains, they are for the first time being given power to allow water to discharge through those drains. It is true that water has for long been discharged through these drains, but now it will be statutorily legal for that to be done.
That provision will be of advantage to farmers because we are applying to the discharge of water the same compensation procedures as are applicable to other similar activities. The farmers will therefore have a statutory protection, and a right of redress and compensation in the


event of flooding as a result of water flowing through the drains. This is a step forward, and will be of help to many hon. Members who have raised this matter.
The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) was again rather less than fair to the Government, who have been in office for only five months. He takes the view tint we should by now have found solutions to the problems left unsolved by his hon. Friends. He seems to believe that the whole question of compensation should by now have been dealt with and, indeed, that legislation should have been enacted by now to deal with this problem. The fact is, however, that it is a complex issue. I appreciate that as the Election fades from memory so the indignation of hon. Gentlemen opposite will mount as they forget the difficulties and problems which they were incapable of solving. This issue cannot be left to the mercy of party politics. A great deal of human hardship is caused by the problem and nobody is more aware of it than is my right hon. Friend who has the matter very much under his consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) asked whether the Bill would empower local authorities to put up fencing as an animal protection. I have to tell him that it would not. That would be possible only as a result of a private Act of Parliament, and it is not the intention to adjust the Bill to cope with that.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of Clauses 52 and 53 applying to heavy lorry parks. It will not be within the compass of those Clauses to deal with that problem.
I hope that the House will forgive me for what has been a speedy attempt to answer as many as I could of the points that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. This has been an extremely informative debate, and I am sure that we shall have a stimulating Committee stage. I am convinced that the benefits that will flow to the community from the flexibility of the Bill, particularly with regard to the building of highways, will be immeasurably helpful to individuals. I believe, too, that the Bill has a valuable road safety facet which is greatly welcomed by the House, and I have great pleasure in asking hon. Members to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

HIGHWAYS [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation having been signified]—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to highways, streets and bridges in England and Wales, it is expedient to authorise—
(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—
(a) any expenses of a Minister of the Crown under that Act; and
(b) any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable under any other enactment out of moneys so provided;
(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums required by that Act to be paid into that Fund.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVI LEGES AND IMMUNITIES)

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): I beg to move,
That the Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Federal Republic of Germany) Order 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I gather that it would be for the convenience of the House if, with that Order, we were to take the subsequent Orders, down to and including item No. 23 on the Order Paper.

Mr. Kershaw: The purpose of the nineteen draft Orders which have been laid before the House is to give effect to privileges and immunities above the scale set out in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The Consular Relations Act, 1968, will come into force on the 1st January, 1971, and will give effect, in regard to all consular posts in the United Kingdom, to the privileges and immunities contained in the Vienna Convention. These provisions, however, are not sufficient to enable us to give effect fully to certain bilateral Consular Conventions and other international agreements with foreign States which the United Kingdom has signed. Each of the Orders before the House is intended to give effect to our international obligations towards a particular foreign State.
The agreements, and consequently the Orders, fall into two distinct groups. Different considerations of policy apply to the two groups, and I shall therefore try to explain them separately.
In the first place there is a group of fifteen Orders which, for convenience, I shall refer to as the "Western European" group. These Orders relate to countries which are mostly in Western Europe, but including also the United States, Mexico and Japan. All these countries have consular establishments here, and we maintain substantial consular establishments in each of the counties. All the Orders have two features in common. First, the international agreements with those countries were all in force before 1968, and in fact they were all under negotiation before 1963 when the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations was drawn up. The earliest is the Consular Convention

with the United States of America, which was signed in June, 1951. These Conventions were laid before Parliament in the ordinary way before they were ratified by the United Kingdom.
With the exception of some provisions which can only be brought into operation as a result of the Consular Relations Act, 1968, effect was given to these Conventions in part under the common law, in part by Orders in Council under the Consular Conventions Act, 1949, and certain tax legislation, and in part by administrative means. The Consular Relations Act, however, is intended to place on a proper legislative basis the privileges and immunities to be accorded to consular posts in the United Kingdom, and it is proposed that Section 3(1) of the Act should be used to enable us by means of these fifteen Orders in Council to continue to give effect to obligations contained in our existing bilateral agreements.
The second feature which these fifteen "Western European" Orders have in common is that they accord privileges only and not immunities from jurisdiction. None of the relevant agreements requires any greater immunity from the jurisdiction of our courts or any greater inviolability for premises or residences than is conferred by the ordinary provisions of the Consular Relations Act. In fact, although the details of each of the Orders now before the House are different, because of variations in the terms of the relevant agreements, only four privileges are accorded under these Orders—namely, rating relief for residences of certain members of consular posts, additional exemptions from customs duty and from taxation, and additional protection for consular bags.
The second group of Orders may be described as the "Eastern European" group. The Orders in this group relate to the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Poland and Romania. These Orders accord immunities from jurisdiction on a diplomatic scale to some or, in the case of the Soviet Union, all of the staff of consulates in the United Kingdom. But in contrast to the other group of Orders, which will affect three-quarters of the consular posts and consular staff in this country, the practical effect of the "Eastern European" Orders will be very limited in


terms of the number of persons concerned. To be precise, they will in the immediate future extend the provisions of the Order only to a further eight officers and seven employees of the two Polish consulates in this country.
The Conventions with Eastern European countries accord immunities which are greater than those accorded by the Vienna Convention. It is important to emphasise that these immunities are accorded on a basis of reciprocity. We thought it essential when negotiating these Conventions to seek the highest obtainable degree of immunity and inviolability for our consulates in those countries and for our consular officers and staff working there. This was explained to the House during debate on the Consular Relations Bill, and the House may recall that it is also the position under the Diplomatic Privileges Act that in order to give effect to special agreements with certain countries in Eastern Europe—the Soviet Union, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia—additional immunities are accorded to staff employed in the embassies of those countries.
If these 19 Orders are approved by both Houses, it is proposed that they should be brought into operation on 1st January, 1971. Only Sections 7 to 11 of the Consular Relations Act came into force when the Act became law. On 11th November an Order was made which provided that the remainder of the Act, including Section 3(1) under which the 19 Orders will be made, will come into force on 1st January, which from the fiscal point of view is an obviously convenient date. Although privileges under the Consular Conventions already in force have been accorded administratively to the consular posts concerned for some years, there is some doubt about whether it is legally permissible or desirable to continue to rely on administrative cover after the entry into force of a statute designed to place all the relevant privileges, exemptions and reliefs on a proper legislative basis. In order to avoid an awkward hiatus during which we would be running the risk of being in breach of our obligations, we have suspended until now the entry into force of the Consular Relations Act and propose to bring the Act and the Orders under it, which form part of

a single coherent scheme, into force simultaneously on the 1st January. The package of Orders which it is thus proposed to bring into force will include 18 Orders relating to merchant shipping which will be made under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Consular Relations Act but which do not have to be laid before Parliament in draft.
I am aware that questions have been made whether or not this procedure of making Orders in advance of entry into force of the relevant statutory provision is ultra vires.
Section 37 of the Interpretation Act of 1889 gives powers to make Orders before an Act comes into force so far as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation at the date of the commencement thereof.
If it were only a matter of mere administrative convenience to have all the Orders and the Act come into force at the same time and on the same day, it might well be argued that this was improper use of Section 37, but this is not the position here.
With regard to the Western European group of Orders the privileges conferred on consuls of these countries are recorded under the Royal Prerogative. The Act makes the basis of these privileges legislative and not prerogative. If, therefore, the Act were to come into force before the draft affirmative Orders were made, there would be a substantial doubt about the continuing power to grant the privileges now accorded under the prerogative during the interim period. It is, of course, most undesirable that there should be any doubt whatever about our ability to comply with our international obligations.
With regard to the second group of Orders which I have called the "Eastern European" group, the question of giving effect to continuing obligations does not arise in the same way. The argument that it is expedient to make these orders in advance of the coming into force of the Act rests on four separate considerations.
The first is that the Orders form part of a single coherent package and it is therefore desirable that the House should have the chance to consider them at the same time as the others. The second, that


to do so would be a saving in Parliamentary time. Third, that it is expedient because until the Order is made we are not in a position to give full effect to the provisions of the Convention with the Soviet Union and Bulgaria, which have after all already been ratified. And fourth that we wish to ratify the Polish and Romanian Conventions in order to obtain our reciprocal rights and if these Orders had not been laid until the 1st of January next our ratification would have been delayed by two months during which time we would not be able to claim the benefits of the Convention for British subjects.
Looking at the position as a whole, therefore, we found that all but four of the Orders need to be made to come into effect on the same day as the 1968 Act and that the remaining four are in themselves urgent. I have, of course, consulted my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I am advised that not only on the grounds of convenience but also for legal reasons, our use of Section 37 of the Interpretation Act of 1889, is not only desirable but necessary. But my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to reply on any further points.
I hope that these explanations will satisfy the House that the unusually large number of these Orders does not in fact signify any alarming extension of privileges or immunities to foreign consuls in this country. We believe that our bilateral Conventions, with their inevitably differing provisions, are of great importance to the functioning of our consular posts abroad. I hope that the House will accept this and approve these draft Orders accordingly.
I now turn to the draft Order No. 23, the European Commission and Court of Human Rights (Immunities and Privileges) Order. It is made under the International Organisations Act, 1968, and confers immunities and privileges in respect of European organisations of which the United Kingdom is a member. The European Commission and Court of Human Rights Order is the first to be made under Section 5 of the International Organisations Act and will enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify and give effect to the Fourth Protocol to the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe and the European Agreement relating to persons participating in proceedings of the

European Commission and Court of Human Rights.
As the House knows, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in 1950, establishes the Commission and the Court to ensure that the obligations undertaken by states which are parties to the Convention are fulfilled. The Commission investigates complaints of violence to human rights and seeks to achieve a settlement. If this fails, the matter may be referred to the Court or the Committee of Ministers.
The Order will confer on the Judges of the Court, its Registrar and its Deputy Registrar inviolability of papers relating to the business of the Court, immunity in respect of anything said or done in their official capacity, and freedom from arrest or detention while exercising their functions. It will also confer on other persons participating in proceedings before the Court or the Committee of Ministers the immunities necessary for that purpose. In addition, it confers limited Customs privileges on the Judges, the Registrar and the Deputy Registrar.
The importance of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the proper functioning of the European Human Rights institutions will be generally accepted. Since the Court, the Commission and the Committee of Ministers do not normally sit in this country, the Order is not likely to have much practical effect here, but it will enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify the Protocol and Agreement, and demonstrate our continuing support of the machinery of the European Convention. Of course, the Commission can and does take evidence in foreign countries, and might well do so here.
It cannot be disputed that the immunities conferred by the Order are necessary to ensure the independence of the judges and officials and to protect persons who may be called upon to take part in proceedings concerning human rights before the Court and the Commission or the Committee of Ministers.
The Eurocontrol Order is made under section 1 of the International Organisations Act and confers on the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) relief by way of


refund of customs duty paid on hydrocarbon oils and refund of purchase tax. It will enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify and give effect to the Additional Protocol to the Eurocontrol Convention.
Eurocontrol's chief purpose is to ensure co-operation between its seven member States (mainly Common Market countries) in matters of air navigation and in particular to provide for the common organisation of air traffic services in the upper air space. Under the original Convention of 1960 Eurocontrol enjoys certain limited reliefs from taxes, including customs duties, and at present it incurs a heavy burden of indirect taxation taxation in connection with its installations and operations. Since Eurocontrol conducts its operations mainly in the territory of a few Member States, this results in some Member States, including the United Kingdom, contributing very large sums of money by way of indirect taxation through the budget of Eurocontrol to the revenue of other Member States.
The Protocol which is designed to accord relief to the organisation in respect of indirect duties, taxes and charges will end this unsatisfactory situation. The loss to the United Kingdom which will be remedied by this Protocol has been estimated at over £300,000 a year. Her Majesty's Government played a leading role in seeking the adoption of this Protocol, and in including in its Protocol of Signature a provision that—
the Governments of the Signatory States shall use their best endeavours to ensure that the Protocol shall enter into force not later than 1 January, 1971".
For obvious reasons, we are anxious not to be dilatory with our ratification.
In addition, the Order confers certain personal customs privileges on the staff of Eurocontrol. These privileges are required by Article 24 of the original Eurocontrol Convention of 1960 and have until now been accorded administratively. Since the enactment of the International Organisations Act, however, it is accepted policy to provide legislative cover for personal customs privileges required under international agreements.
It is rare that the sponsor of an Order of this kind can assure the House that we will receive such a direct and substantial financial benefit from the international

agreement to which it gives effect, and I am sure that this feature will commend it to the House.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: For convenience, the House is taking 21 Orders together. As the Under-Secretary pointed out, they fall into three groups. The hon. Gentleman dealt with the 19 which come under the Consular Relations Act first, but I propose to deal with them in the reverse order.
My hon. Friends and I have no objection to the Eurocontrol (Immunities and Privileges) Order, which the Under-Secretary explained last. We welcome the European Commission and Court of Human Rights (Immunities and Privileges) Order, although I have one concern about that; namely, that while under article 5(3) the immunity is conferred on witnesses and others who partake in proceedings in the Court of Human Rights, the immunity lasts for only 15 days after the day when their presence is no longer required by the tribunal.
Obviously there must be a time lapse for immunity in relation to people about whom the police in this country may have certain questions. However, I hope that when this is applied, if it ever falls to be applied, the Government will be flexible in their adherence to this question of 15 days, because it could be a trap for anybody appearing before the Court; that is, if such a person did not realise that his immunity lasted for only 15 days.
I do not know what, if any, administrative procedure exists for warning those given immunity of the length of time during which their immunity lasts. I hope, if there is no such administrative procedure, that there will be a certain amount of flexibility. However, this is a minor point and not one over which one would wish to object to the Order.
I fear that we cannot be as amiable when we come to the remaining 19 Orders which are the major substance for debate tonight. These fall under the Consular Relations Act, 1968. During the course of the discussion of that Measure, the then Opposition asked that these Orders should come forward at a very early date. It has taken about two and a half years for them to come before the House, and my submission is that we should have


waited a little longer to clear up the ambiguities and difficulties that surround the tabling of these Orders.
The first point my hon. Friends wish to make clear is that the Orders are ultra vires the Act anyway. I raised this matter private with the Under-Secretary, who was good enough to refer to it during his remarks. The point arises under Section 37 of the Interpertation Act of 1889, which states that Orders in Council may be laid and passed
so far as they may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation at the date of the commencement thereof.
The Under-Secretary pointed out that there would be certain inconveniences to the Government in adhering to international obligations if the Orders did not come into effect on the date when the Act comes into force. However, that sort of inconvenience is not what is meant by the words contained in the Interpretation Act. That is certainly our view. Those words—and the matter will be dealt with in greater detail by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin)—really refer to the machinery which is necessary to bring the Act into operation and not to give the extra privileges or immunities permitted by the Act, and which can come into effect only when Orders are laid.
There would be a hiatus if these Orders do not come into effect on 1st January next year but, as the Minister indicated, this hiatus is not likely to cause a great deal of difficulty since, in most cases, the privileges and immunities have been allowed either by the exercise of prerogative or by administrative procedure, and the administrative procedure could continue for the short time that would be necessary if these Orders were to be laid immediately after the coming recess. It is to be hoped that the whole matter would then be reconsidered in any delay that there might be.
During the discussion on what was the Consular Relations Bill the point was made that the Vienna Convention of 1963 was intended to clarify and regularise the position of consuls throughout the world. The object was the same as in relation to diplomats under the Vienna Convention of 1961; that is, that the United Nations wanted to have a standard procedure for the treatment of both diplomats and con-

suls—and in the Diplomatic Privileges Act we gave effect to the Convention in relation to diplomats and in the Consular Relations Act we gave effect to the Convention in relation to consuls.
It is, therefore, somewhat anomalous that, having decided as part of an international agreement binding on those Member States who have ratified it that there are certain standards to which we should live up, we should then go in excess of those standards by bilaterally making agreements which give greater privileges or immunities.
The argument used against that by hon. Members of the Opposition, as they were at the time of the debate on the Consular Relations Bill, was that the Foreign Office had made agreements before the Bill was passed, that in some cases those agreements gave rather greater protection than was given by the Vienna Conventions and that it was in the interests of our own consuls in the other countries that they should get the reciprocal benefits of those earlier bilateral agreements if they were greater than they would get under the Vienna Convention.
The House was prepared to accept that assurance, as I suspect it would be prepared to accept the assurance of the Under-Secretary in his opening remarks; that these are necessary for the proper functioning of the duties of consuls in some of those countries.
On closer analysis—and the virtue of tabling these 19 Orders together is that one has an opportunity of analysing the whole lot side by side—one sees that it does not really add up. The position is that under Schedule 2 of the Consular Relations Act, 1968, there were six paragraphs which dealt with the extension of exemptions of either privileges or immunities, the first three relating to privileges and the second three relating to immunities. The first paragraph was immunity from dues and taxes in relation to consular premises, including the residence of the career head of the consular post. Under these Orders that exemption is extended to every country named on the Orders, except the Netherlands and Roumania. Why is it necessary that all these other countries should be able to forgo their rates, and so on, on the premises of consular officers if the Netherlands and Roumania do not find it necessary to have that exemption?
The most curious exemption is one which is contained in the Order affecting the United States of America. It relates not only to consular officers, but to guards, messengers and drivers. Why should the guards, messengers and drivers have certain privileges which are necessarily accorded, perhaps, to the head of a consular post but which seem inappropriate for those who drive his motor car? It does not obtain in relation to the Orders affecting the other 18 countries. I am not sure that guards, messengers and drivers are members of the service staff as defined in the Vienna Convention. Perhaps the Order affecting the United States needs re-examination. That could be done if the Orders were taken away and retabled after the Recess.
The second paragraph relates to exemption from most taxations for consular officers. Apparently this is not extended to any of the countries named, except again to the guards, messengers and drivers, who seem to be in a peculiarly privileged position, and also to the East European group.
The third paragraph relates to exemption from Customs duties for consular employees in respect of articles imported at the time of their first installation. This is extended to all the Communist states and to a number of what the Under-Secretary called the West European States and to the guards, messengers and drivers of the United States, but apparently not to Italy, Japan, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Why is it necessary to give such a privilege to some consular employees and officials and not to consular employees and officials from other countries?
I recognise that in some measure the Government are bound by the bilateral agreements which were entered into some time ago and that some parts of those agreements are a valuable asset in enabling the work of the consul to be performed and that the Government want to keep them. It would have been possible to have exchanged notes with the appropriate countries limiting and rationalising the privileges which are extended in these Orders in the first three paragraphs.
The House will have noted that the first three paragraphs relate to privileges and that the privileges help the appropriate persons to evade some form of taxation in the United Kingdom with

reciprocal advantages for our consuls in the countries affected by the Orders. Why is that necessary as an extension of the Vienna Convention?
I see logic in extending the Convention in relation to the immunities which are contained in the final three paragraphs of Schedule 2 of the Consular Relations Act. Those immunities give protection in relation to the inviolability and immunity from arrest of consular officials. It is clearly helpful that that should be so. The Under-Secretary said that that applies only in relation to the East European countries. A certain protection is given to the consular bag coming from certain countries in the West. Why is it necessary to give those protections to Germany, Italy, Sweden, Austria and Czechoslovakia and not to any of the other countries which are named in these Orders?
These 19 Orders relating to existing bilateral agreements do not by any means cover the whole area of our diplomatic and consular representation throughout the world. If it is possible to manage within the limits of the Vienna Convention in relation to these other countries, why is it not possible to manage, at least in relation to non-Communist countries, with the privileges and immunities which are contained in the Convention for these 15 countries?
Therefore, we think that the situation is a continuation of an irrational position which could have been clarified and on which the Government could have taken the opportunity, because they had to table the Orders, of making the situation more rational. For instance, they could have done something about the real threat to any consul or diplomat nowadays, which is not so much the pressure of the state in the country where he practises as the threat from kidnappers who might choose to use the threat to life as a bargaining counter with their co domestic Government.
This activity, which is totally deplorable, has been on the increase in recent months. It has affected one of our own diplomats. If the Government had decided that, to rationalise the position, they would reconsider the existing immunities and privileges for consuls throughout the world, it might have been possible to have negotiated also some kind of protection from kidnappers.
This is clearly difficult. A kidnapper almost by definition acts outside the law and will not be bound by any protection given in any convention. The real threat to people like Mr. Cross is that the kidnapper can usually bargain upon being able to go to a haven after he has negotiated whatever it is he is trying to secure. If there were an international obligation to make an outlaw of the kidnapper and refuse him a haven after he had indulged in the deed, it is highly unlikely that the kidnapper would think of using this form of persuasion upon his domestic government.
If there had been no Cuba to which the Canadian kidnappers could have gone, would they have taken Mr. Cross in the first place? I recognise that once they had taken him it was convenient for the Canadian Government to be able to persuade them that they ought to go to Cuba, that having gone there they would be given absolute protection, and that this was a way of saving Mr. Cross's life. But was he not put in jeopardy precisely because his kidnappers had this kind of haven to go to?
Would it not be possible under an international agreement, possibly inaugurated by the United Nations, to make proposals which would protect our diplomats and consuls in a much more realistic way than any protection that we can give them at the moment? Would not this be more relevant than simply being able to ensure that the guards, messengers and drivers of the United States consul are able to bring in their whisky at appropriate times when they are coming to their posts?

8.20 p.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) mentioned that we had told the Government of our intention to raise the question of the vires of these Orders. I am most grateful to the Attorney-General for coming to reply to the difficulties with which I shall deal. It may seem a little strange to be arguing a nice point of law in the House, but, of couse, this is the High Court of Parliament.
My purpose in asking the House to consider whether the Orders which are laid before the House in draft are or are

not infra vires is not to raise technicalities and still less to make any party political point. It is more important and fundamental. The draft Orders purport to grant various privileges and immunities to consular officers, their families and staff. They confer exemption from rates and taxes and customs duties, and to that extent they affect the Exchequer, for which the Government are responsible. But they also affect local authorities for which the Government are not responsible. In some cases they confer immunity from jurisdiction, and to that extent they affect the private citizen by depriving him of rights of recourse to the law which he would otherwise enjoy. In some cases they restrict the right to require the beneficiaries of the Orders to give evidence in court or to suffer execution of their goods.
It will therefore be apparent to the House that the question whether the Orders will or will not be valid may affect persons and bodies in this country over which the Government have no control. Whilst the Government might, and doubtless would, refrain from relying upon the invalidity of Orders which they themselves have laid, if this House and the other place approve them, it is not possible for this House, the other place or the Government to prevent a private citizen or local authority from contending before a court that the Orders are invalid. If they were held to be invalid, consular officers, their families and staff who had relied upon them would suddenly find that they had done so in vain, and that to the extent to which the Orders purport to give them privileges and immunities beyond those enjoyed by the ordinary citizens of the land are a sham and a delusion.
That alone would be bad enough, but these are Orders to give effect to reciprocal agreements, and if they are invalid in this country, then this country will be in default of her agreements with the United States of America, the Soviet Union and 17 other States. It is therefore not enough that the House should believe the Orders to be valid; it must be certain that they are. If there is any real doubt whether the courts would regard them as valid, the doubt should not be left hanging over them, possibly for many years, until a question arises in the courts. The doubt, if it exists, should be resolved now. As my hon. Friend


said, there is no difficulty about resolving the doubt, for what is doubtful is simply whether the Orders are premature. If they are, or if it is possible that the courts may regard them as premature, the Government have only to withdraw them and to lay them again in a few weeks' time and the prematurity can be cured. I accept that if that is done there may in certain cases be some gap in the reciprocity, but it is certainly better that there should be a gap which would be very short than a question mark over the validity which may hang over the Orders for many years.
That is why we on this side of the House take the question of doubt seriously. If the Government decide that the wise course is to withdraw the Orders we shall certainly not regard that in any sense as a tactical victory for this side of the House but rather as a piece of prudent foresight by the Government.
I come to the question of law which arises. I do not for a moment doubt the excellence of the advice which the Government have no doubt received on the matter but, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know only too well, the best advisers are sometimes mistaken, and we believe that in the present case there is at the least a serious doubt whether the advice was correct. That doubt does not exist only on these benches. The Special Orders Committee of the other place, whose duty it is to examine such Orders, has already expressed its doubt in print. That Committee, like our Statutory Instruments Committee, examines Statutory Instruments and has the duty to draw the attention of the other place to matters which call for comment. In its Fourth Report it has called attention to its doubts about the Orders, and the reasons which it gives for them are the same as those which produce the doubts which we on this side of the House have. They derive from the technicalities of the legislation and from the judgments which have been delivered in two cases in the Court of Appeal. I shall state them as simply as I can.
These Orders are made under powers given in Section 3(1) of the Consular Relations Act, 1968. We are not concerned with the other two Orders, which relate to European organisations, and we have

no point to make on them. They come under a different Act. But the Consular Relations Act, save for Sections 7 to 11, is not yet in force and will not be until 1st January, 1971. Section 16(3) provides that the Act shall come into force on and not before such day as an Order-in-Council may appoint. That Order-in-Council has been made, bringing the Act into force on 1st January. It follows from that that Section 3(1) has not yet been brought into force.
If the matter rested there, there would obviously be no doubt that the Orders which purport to be made under a Section which is not yet in force cannot possibly be valid. This is where the doubt creeps in. The hon. Gentleman referred to the provisions of Section 37 of the Interpretation Act, 1889, and relies upon that Section for giving validity to the Orders. That Section provides that Orders-in-Council and other instruments may, in certain circumstances, be valid where the power to make them is exercised before the Act under which they are made comes into operation.
It would make nonsense of provisions in an Act postponing the coming into operation of that Act if the provisions of Section 37 of the Interpretation Act were wholly unrestricted. It would mean that the power to make delegated legislation could always be exercised even before the Act was in force. Clearly, that cannot be the case. Section 37 avoids that anomaly. It does so by restricting the power which it conveys to make such Orders so that it may be exercised, and exercised only, so far as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation at its commencement date.
The meaning of that restriction, I myself would have thought, would not seem to be unduly obscure. There may be some provisions in an Act which cannot operate at all unless an Order is made before the commencement. In that case, the power to make the Order before the Act commences is necessary in order to enable that provision to operate.
Such a case arose under a provision of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. This was the case of Rex v. Minister of Town and Country Planning ex parte Montague Burton, and it is reported in the first volume of the King's


Bench Report, 1951, at page 1. In that case, Lord Justice Tucker described the effect of Section 37 on page 6. He said:
It gives power to take the necessary steps to set up the machinery for bringing the Act into operation.
In other words, its purpose is, as he said:
… so that the necessary machinery will function as soon as the new Act comes into operation.
He emphasised, and I emphasise, the word "machinery".
But Section 37 goes further than that. It applies not only to cases where it is necessary in order to bring the machinery of the Act into operation but also to cases where the Orders in question, and the power to make them, are expedient for bringing the Act into operation.
In this sense it applies, for example, to Acts which bring a particular system into operation but leave the details of the system to be filled in by regulations or rules. Such a case arose under the Registered Designs Act, 1949, which provided for the registration of designs with the Patent Office but left it to the Board of Trade to make statutory rules to regulate the business of the Patent Office in relation to designs. Clearly in that case the machinery of registration could not effectively operate from the commencement of the Act unless the rules were made before the commencement of the Act.
Hence it was that in the case of Usher v. Barlow, reported in the First Volume, Courts of the Chancery Division 1952, page 255, the Court of Appeal held such rules made before the commencement of that Act to be valid. In the course of their judgment their Lordships echoed the language used in the early case to which I have referred, and Lord Justice Jenkins explained the word "expedient" by saying that the Order must be one
… with which the Act will come into operation more conveniently or effectively.
It is, in other words, the coming into operation of the machinery of the Act upon which the wording of Section 37 operates. These are the only two cases of which I know where Section 37 has been before the courts. Certainly they are the only cases that I have been able to find in the standard works of reference. Both are cases in which the power created

by Section 37 has been held to cover Orders which bring the machinery of an Act into operation. Neither of them covers a case in which an Order is made which is not a machinery-creating Order. These draft Orders now before the House are not machinery-creating Orders, they are power-exercising Orders. They go far beyond either of the two cases to which I have referred and, subject to what the Attorney-General may say, it seems to us at this stage of the matter that they are not Orders the making of which is necessary or expedient for bringing the Act into operation at the date of its commencement.
I realise that it may be said—it has been said by the Under-Secretary—that it would be inconvenient if they did not operate from the date of the commencement of the Act. But that is a totally different matter from the matter dealt with by Section 37. The mere fact that there would be inconvenience does not mean that Section 37 operates in this case.
This is not an easy subject, and I am grateful to the Attorney-General for coming to the House to assist us with it. I am grateful to the House for the patience with which it has listened to me expounding our views on what is, although a technical matter, nonetheless a very important matter. We share the doubts expressed by the Special Orders Committee of the other place. I gather that the other place may be debating these Orders in the course of this week. In the light of those doubts we feel, subject to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman may say, that the House would be wise not to approve these draft Orders now and that the Government would be wise to withdraw them and give further consideration to this question of prematurity which may sow seeds of future confusion and uncertainty.

8.40 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): I rise, not to wind up the debate—because certain matters, such as kidnapping, have been raised by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) which would be more appropriately dealt with by the Under-Secretary of State—but to try to assist the House on the matter raised by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). The hon. and learned Gentleman


kindly said that he appreciated my presence. I hope that he will feel as appreciative after I have tried to give the House what help I can on this point.
The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich rightly painted the awful consequences which might be said to arise if it were found, as it could be found if a claim were contested in the courts, that the Orders were invalid. New Orders would have to be laid and made as quickly as possible. But the hiatus between finding such Orders invalid, if it should happen, which I beg leave to doubt, and the making of new Orders would probably be the same as the hiatus which would exist if the Act came into force on 1st January and we followed the hon. and learned Gentleman's advice and postponed the laying of the Orders. In other words, the interval would be the same, although the effect would be different, because the effect would arise after the Act had come into force.
Fifteen of the Orders, referred to as the Western European group, confer additional privileges but not immunities. Hitherto, they have been conferred by administrative action under the prerogative powers vested in the Executive. But by Section 3 of the Consular Relations Act, 1968, there arises the power to grant these privileges by Order-in-Council and, therefore, by implication, there arises the very substantial doubt, to put it at its lowest, that by Section 3 the Executive have been deprived of the prerogative power to accord these privileges administratively. Therefore, for a particular period, there would be very substantial doubt about whether these privileges could continue to be conferred by administrative action. Thus, the existence of the doubt that the Government might be unable to comply with the treaty obligations which this country has entered into makes it expedient to bring the Orders into force on the same day as the Act.
The remaining four Orders are in a different category. They confer immunities as well as accord privileges. However, since the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations it is probably not within international customary law and, therefore, probably not available at common law, to use what has been used in the past. In any event, such immunities can be conferred only within the framework of the 1968 statute.
The group of four Orders is divided into two. The first two relate to Russia and Bulgaria. There we might well be in breach of the bilateral treaties and it could therefore be said to be expedient, if not wholly necessary, to introduce the Orders. The second group of Orders relate to Poland and Romania and these Her Majesty's Government want to ratify urgently. They cannot do so until the requisite immunities and privileges are conferred, and it is obviously expedient to introduce the Orders so that they come into effect with the Conventions as soon as possible after 1st January, 1971, otherwise there would be a delay. That is by way of introduction to the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman pointing out, when we come to examine the Interpretation Act, the distinction between necessity and expediency.
The general principle, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has made clear, is that unless there is a contrary intention, or it is necessary for bringing the Act into operation, the Statutory Instrument cannot be brought into operation before the Act. The Act comes into force on 1st January, 1971, which is the date of the Order, and there is, therefore, no question of the Order coming into operation before the commencement of the Act.
Section 3(1) of the Consular Relations Act specifically refers to agreements made whether before or after the passing of the Act. Some of the agreements which have been entered into before 1st January, 1971, could not be given effect to as soon as the Act comes into operation unless a Statutory Instrument is made under the powers conferred by that Section.
The doubts that have been expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman and in the Fourth Report of the Special Orders Committee of the House of Lords turn on the Interpretation Act, 1889, Section 37. In paragraph (a) the Special Orders Committee called to the attention of the House three matters and expressed a doubt. The Committee referred to the Consular Relations Act, 1968, Section 3(1), under which the Orders purport to be made and say that the Act is not yet in force. The Committee goes on to say:
The power to make Orders in Council before the Act comes into force resides therefore in Section 37 of the Interpretation Act, 1889, which provides that, 'that power may unless the contrary intention appears be exercised at any time after the passing of the


Act, so far as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation at the date of the commencement thereof …'".
That, as the hon. Gentleman has said, is the operative part of Section 37. The Committee went on:
The Act will give the force of law to certain provisions of the Vienna Convention. The doubt is whether Orders in Council enlarging privileges and immunities conferred by those provisions are 'expedient for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation'".
The quotation marks are then closed, and the quotation does not continue to the end of the Section:
… at the date of the commencement thereof".
It is on the words "on the date of the commencement thereof" and the link with expediency on which my submission lies that it is appropriate and proper for the Orders to be laid at this time.
The hon. and learned Gentleman quoted the Court of Appeal in dealing with Section 37. He referred to some words which were said in the case of R. v. The Minister of Town and Country Planning in 1951. It was said in that case:
The words in Section 37 referring to regulations, byelaws, notices, prescribed forms, and so forth, make it clear that matters of that kind may be made under section 37 so that the necessary machinery will function as soon as the new Act comes into operation and things shall not come to a standstill by reason of the repeal of the existing Act.
The important part of that quotation is in the words
… the necessary machinery will function as soon as the new Act comes into operation.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman then referred to the judgment of Lord Justice Jenkins in Usher v. Barlow—(1 Ch. 1952 p. 255)—and I shall quote from that judgment a little more fully. It also refers to Section 37. Lord Justice Jenkins said:
If the section had been confined to matters without which the Acts could not come into operation at all, the words 'or expedient' would so far as I can see, have been not only otiose but wholly inappropriate. A matter without which an Act cannot come into operation at all is necessary for the purpose of bringing it into operation, and cannot be anything less than that. A matter which is merely expedient for the purpose of bringing an Act into operation is by definition not necessary for that purpose. It is a matter without

which the Act can come into operation, but with which the Act will come into operation more conveniently or effectively.
There is this distinction between "necessary" and "expedient". "Expediency" is linked to the words at the end of Section 37
at the date of the commencement thereof.
The Special Orders Committee, with respect, may not fully have appreciated that the test is not just in regard to the words
expedient for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation
but
expedient for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation at the date of the commencement thereof.
Turning back to the 1968 Consular Relations Act Section 3(1) is an integral pant of the Act and it is impossible for it to operate from the date of commencement unless Orders are made under the section before commencement. The date of commencement is the clear test of "necessary" or "expedient" as applying to the exercise of power between passing and amendment.
If I may give an example which came before the House in 1969 under the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act, there was an Order made on 12th June, 1969, the same date as the Order appointing the commencement of the Act, That fixed a rate of interest on sums recoverable after the commencement of the Act; so they were fixing the rate in advance by order. That was not essential for bringing the Act into operation on the date of its commencement but it was "expedient". The House accepted that and there has been no challenge in those circumstances.
A distinction can be drawn from a more recent example namely the Draft Farm Amalgamations and Boundary Adjustments Scheme 1970 and the Draft Farm Structure (Payments to Outgoers) Scheme 1970. In that case before the House the procedure was different, because the 1889 Act did not apply in the case of those schemes under the Agriculture Act. The supporting legislation under the Agriculture Acts was being made under an earlier Act which was already in force. There was no question of it being made
for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation at the date of commencement thereof.


It was in those circumstances and in that case that the Government—I do not believe it was at the behest of the Opposition—decided that it was not right to lay those Orders in those particular circumstances.
Shortly, therefore, the point on Section 37 is that it is expedient and even necessary that the Orders relating to all the countries, with the exception of the Romania and Poland Orders, should come into effect from the commencement of the Act, so that our international obligations under existing agreements may be discharged from the date of commencement of the Act. In the case of Romania and Poland, it is expedient that the Order should come into operation as soon as possible after the commencement of the Act, because we want to ratify the agreements with those countries as soon as possible.
The House will be grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for raising such a matter and, for his courtesy in giving notice so that at least I have been able to try to give an explanation of the advice which I have tendered. It is important that we should always consider such Orders to see whether we can avoid making Orders which subsequently may be held ultra vires. But it is a matter of advice and judgment, and I can only say that I have so advised the Government, and that I would so advise the House, that these matters are intra vires.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Kershaw: I have only a few words in reply to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) on his points on policy. I do not wholly understand why the hon. Gentleman wishes us to be satisfied with the Vienna Convention, just the Vienna Convention and nothing but the Vienna Convention. After all, one realises that reciprocity is at the heart of this matter. In countries such as Russia, he will agree that the right of access to our citizens in prison there is a matter of the greatest possible importance. It is very much in our interests to have a much wider cover than the Vienna Convention in some cases.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I understand the point that the Under-Secretary has just made. However, the immunities referred to in the Soviet Union Order,

for instance, do not relate to access to people imprisoned but to the immunities of the consular officers in relation to inviolability and the rest.

Mr. Kershaw: But the status of the consular officers who have to discharge these duties is important in this regard, and that is the reason why we want these provisions.
In regard to the various draft Orders, there are further reasons why it is not possible to rely only on the Vienna Convention. The first is that eight of the Orders are in respect of countries which are not parties to the Vienna Convention. We could not ask them to alter our Treaties with them to conform with a Convention to which they are not parties. In the case of those countries which are parties, I would point out that it is in our interests to have the rather wider facilities in these Conventions rather than those which the Vienna Convention provides, because we have far more consular officers abroad in their countries than they have here. Therefore, from a financial and practical point of view it is very much in our interests that they should have extended privileges and immunities here.
Lastly, there is no derogation from the Vienna Convention in this, for the Convention recognises and provides for this both by preserving agreements which have already been made and allowing new ones to be made by signatories of the Vienna Convention.
The hon. Gentleman referred to one or two specific countries. In the case of the Netherlands, it is true that we have no agreement about rates. The reason is that that country is not a party to a full-scale Convention. The Netherlands is merely party to a customs agreement. When one comes to consider Romania, no question of rates arises in the Convention because that country has at yet no consulate here.
As for the United States, it is true that we have many American officials hopping round disguised as consuls. That is the way they wanted it. One can only surmise, but it may be that in 1951 there was a residual American feeling that foreign food was either non-existent or poisonous, and that they had to bring everything with them. That may have coloured the view of the negotiators at the time. However, that is speculation.


From the point of view of policy, it would be hardly worthwhile our engaging in a long wrangle with the United States with a view to obtaining some uniformity in an area long distinguished by a lack of uniformity which is itself actually helpful to us. So probably that should he left as it is.
I must not follow the hon. Gentleman too far on kidnapping. None of these Orders deals with that. From the legal point of view, all safeguards exist. Kidnapping raises questions of practical security which do not arise in any discussion of these Orders.
I hope that the House will approve the Orders.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Federal Republic of Germany) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (French Republic) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.—[Mr. Kershaw.]

Resolved,
That the Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Italian Republic) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.—[Mr. Kershaw.]

Resolved,
That the Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Japan) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.—[Mr. Kershaw.]

Resolved,
That the Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Kingdom of Belgium) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved—[Mr. Kershaw.]

Resolved,
That the Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Kingdom of Denmark) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.—[Mr. Kershaw.]

Resolved,
That the Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Kingdom of Greece) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.—[Mr. Kershaw.]

Resolved,
That the Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Kingdom of the Netherlands) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.—[Mr. Kershaw.]

Resolved,
That the Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Kingdom of Norway) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.—[Mr. Kershaw.]

Resolved,
That the Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Kingdom of Sweden) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.—[Mr. Kershaw.]

Resolved,
That the Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Republic of Austria) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.—[Mr. Kershaw.]

Resolved,
That the Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.—[Mr. Kershaw.]

Resolved,
That the Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Spanish State) Order. 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.—[Mr. Kershaw.]

Resolved,
That the Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (United States of America) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.—[Mr. Kershaw.]

Resolved,
That the Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (United States of Mexico) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.—[Mr. Kershaw.]

Resolved,
That the Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (People's Republic of Bulgaria) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.—[Mr. Kershaw.]

Resolved,
That the Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Polish People's Republic) Order. 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.—[Mr. Kershaw.]

Resolved,
That the Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Socialist Republic of Roumania) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.—[Mr. Kershaw.]

Resolved,
That the Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.—[Mr. Kershaw.]

Resolved,
That the Eurocontrol (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.—[Mr. Kershaw.]

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES)

Resolved,
That the European Commission and Court of Human Rights (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved. —[Mr. Kershaw.]

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN ASSEMBLIES (PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS)

Resolved,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the costs of travel and subsistence allowances for nominated Members and Substitutes of this House and of the House of Lords for the purpose of attending meetings of the Council of Europe, Western European Union and the North Atlantic Assembly.—[Mr. Rossi.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Rossi.]

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: Any hon. Member who represents a city centre constituency, perhaps above all a constituency in Central London, knows the complex problems surrounding the quality of life in such areas and the need for additional action, in some cases by way of new legislation and in others by way of increased Government intervention in the years ahead. Issues of transport and welfare, the provision of play facilities and provision for young people all come together in the inner City, and nowhere is that more apparent in a more compelling form than in terms of housing.
Looking at the population projections for central London, it is clear that the population will drop steadily from now until the end of the century and that there is some hope for thinking that we may see an improvement in the housing situation. On the other hand, when one looks at the housing developments taking place in and proposed for my constituency, there is cause for concern.
I hate referring to my speeches unduly, but in my maiden speech to this House on 19th May, 1966, I said:
At the moment, two main types of development are taking place in Paddington. There is private development, largely catering for luxury needs, and there is the building of large council estates. My fear is that, if this process continues, eventually a line will be drawn between the two types of development. There will be two communities with little in common and virtually an iron curtain dividing them. As these areas are redeveloped, we should seek to create a truly balanced community in them and we should encourage the middle band of housing between the two I have mentioned.
That danger remains. Although there have been some heartening signs of an encouragement of that middle band, there is still the danger, that, both in housing provision and in the projections of employment opportunities which will be open in central London over the next 20 to 30 years as skilled people are drawn out into the new towns, we will be left with those in the service industries, many of them low paid, and with the more affluent end of the community. I do not


believe that this would be healthy or would make for a cohesive society in central London. We have seen on the other side of the Atlantic in some cities how this process can continue.
On 19th May, 1966, I went on to say:
I want, next, to mention the work of housing associations in catering for the needs of the middle band of housing, for they can do an immense amount to help those who are in the worst housing state in the big cities. They can make a great impact on the type of multi-occupied property of which there is so much in Paddington by converting those houses into decent self-contained flats which could then be let at non-profit rents … What housing associations need is encouragement and loans from local authorities and encouragement from the central Government to enable them to make their full contribution to meeting housing needs in large cities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1966; Vol. 728, c. 1634–5.]
I raise the question of the future of housing associations tonight because I think that it is an appropriate time to see how their work is developing and what further encouragement they might need from the central Government.
I should mention that I am the chairman of the Paddington Churches Housing Association which operates largely within my constituency.
Housing associations have great advantages in the inner London situation. They have a flexibility which is denied local authorities. They do not have to impose residential qualifications on those who apply for housing. This is perhaps the only area of housing provision where need is the sole criterion for admission. Housing associations do not even have to be able to pay the prices that they would in the private sector. They do not have to be able to afford to buy, as they would in the owner-occupied sector. They do not need residential qualifications, as they do in the council housing sector.
The work of the housing associations has grown. The Milner Holland Report estimated that from 1945 to 1963 housing associations of all types in London were providing about 200 dwellings a year. This year, in London alone, they will be providing over 3,000 dwellings, and developing very fast.
For the first time, housing associations have now begun to take over properties which are virtually wholly occupied. When large estates come on to the market housing associations have begun to buy

them, not because they are providing empty accommodation, but because this is a way of ensuring continued good management of these estates which, if broken up and sold off to the highest bidder, might not continue. This is important in central London where we still have large numbers of controlled and regulated tenancies.
I welcome the new plans announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for a new system of housing subsidies. This scheme will mean for the first time that, because housing subsidies are extended to tenants in private accommodation, housing association tenants will be able to be subsidised. It is a long overdue act to extend subsidy arrangements to individuals in privately-rented accommodation and to tenants of housing associations, rather than restricting subsidies arbitrarily to those who happen to live in the publicly-owned council housing sector of our housing provision.
There is—and I put this in by way of parenthesis—doubt about the real impact of this extension to private tenants in the central London area because of the rapid decline in unfurnished lettings in that area. We find that of those who come to us as a housing association and ask to be housed because of poor conditions 99 per cent. are living in furnished and not unfurnished accommodation. The distinctions drawn by our legislation, and the different forms of control exercised over them, has encouraged the development of furnished lettings, and I therefore wonder just how real the impact of the new subsidy provisions will be for private tenants in some areas.
All that highlights the fact that the work of the housing associations is important and is likely to be of growing importance as time goes by. I believe that we should ask ourselves what we can do to encourage them. I know that if I talked about legislation I should quickly be called to order, but let me simply place on record my belief that, ultimately, legislation will be needed in this respect, and we look forward to the Cohen Report to see what it has to say.
In the interim, however, there is administrative action which the Government can take. The first of these is to adopt a model scheme, a common


scheme, outlining the relationships between housing associations and the local authorities, which are their normal source of funds. At the moment there is an uneven pattern in the country—indeed, there is an uneven pattern even in London—for the relationship and in the conditions laid down for that relationship. I understand that the Minister has a draft model scheme before him. This scheme need not be imposed by legislation. It could be given the backing of the Ministry and recommended to local authorities as a proper basis for the relationship between an authority and a housing association. I think that such a common scheme would give housing associations a great advantage.
Second, I believe that we can improve the administrative procedures to which housing associations are subject. At the moment, a housing association has to go back to the local authority for the approval of each individual scheme. The scheme can be as small as one house, or as large as 20 or 30 houses, or an even greater number, but for each scheme the housing association has to get approval for valuation and purchase, and the administrative burden on both the local authority and the housing association is very great. The housing association wants to keep down its administrative costs and to keep its staff to as low a level as possible.
I am told that the G.L.C. is worried that in fulfilling its undertaking to provide £75 million over three years to the housing association movement its real bottleneck may be the administrative arrangements in approving these schemes. It therefore seems reasonable that housing authorities which have been running for a certain length of time should be able to go to the local authority and ask for a block sum of money. Having, as it were, won their spurs by proving that they can run satisfactorily, they should then be able to ask for a block sum of money, and, subject only to an audit at, say, six-monthly intervals, or some other appropriate interval, to show that they have spent the money responsibility, they should be able to go ahead and then go back to the local authority for another tranche of money to buy further houses. This would speed up the procedure and help to keep administra-

tive costs low both within the local authority and for the housing association itself.
Third—this may not come directly within the Minister's remit—the dividing line between the sort of housing which housing associations are providing and sheltered housing is narrow. If the housing associations are providing for old people, they can get a special grant for the "welfare" provision which may be an integral part of the housing provision, for a warden or for some other link with the residents.
In Paddington, we have a particular problem. It does not reflect particularly on the honour of Paddington, because it is a railway terminus. About a third of the lettings within our housing association, the Paddington Churches Housing Association, go to unsupported mothers of one sort or another. We need to give these girls support other than simply providing them with a roof over their heads. We can do with someone virtually full-time simply teaching domestic management. We could do with child care to free the mothers so that they can earn their own living. This general field of being able to provide, or supporting, welfare services as an integral part of the housing provision for certain groups is something which the Government should consider. Again, I do not believe that it will require legislation; they should be able to do it administratively.
Finally—this is not a point directly for the Government, but I hope that it will be in order—my housing association was formed by the churches of all denominations working in Paddington, but there are other associations which are not so linked. I should have thought, that, if there were one characteristic of city centres in addition to poor housing it is that they tend to be "over-churched". The provision of churches was for another age and another pattern of worship. There seems to be a case for the churches coming together, on an inter-denominational basis preferably and trying to see how they can use church buildings more rationally to cater for present-day congregations. If they then said that they were prepared to sell off the surplus churches to cost-rent housing associations, they could make a real contribution to meeting the housing need in central London, a much more rational use


of their own resources, and a really great demonstration of the relevance of the church to the future of our urban areas.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, I think that that is some other kind of ministerial responsibility.

Mr. Scott: I will hastily move on, Mr. Speaker, and come rapidly to a conclusion.
I do not ask the Minister for specific commitments and pledges. I do ask him, however, to recognise the importance of the housing associations and to pledge Government support for the continued vigorous expansion of the work which they are doing. They have a great contribution to make in our city centres, particularly if we are to halt this polarisation of which I spoke. I hope that he may be able to give me some hope on the points that I have raised.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) for raising this topic. We are fortunate in that our other business finished earlier than anticipated, so that I have an opportunity to comment on this subject, though I promise to be brief.
The issue which the hon. Gentleman has raised is particularly apposite because we are awaiting with interest detailed statements of Government policy in regard to the changes in their schemes of housing subsidy, and the hon. Member for Paddington, South referred to this. Naturally, however, I am not as sanguine about it as he is.
We are concerned not only with city centres. We also have in mind areas of housing renewal and particularly those areas in cities which were built up between 1850 and the turn of the century or just after. These houses were built for social purposes which are no longer relevant to the areas. The physical state of this property is not as good as it should be and one must choose whether to renew it completely or go in for a lot of rehabilitation.
I join with the hon. Gentleman in saying that this is the sort of area—Paddington is one example—where the housing association has an undoubted rôle to

play: in the centre of a town and just outside the centre of an older built-up area, Acton is one, which is full of Victorial property, now in need of a great deal of attention.
I reinforce the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the rôle which housing societies and associations can play in providing for particular needs. He mentioned one such need. There are occupational needs which make a call on our housing resources and which must be met by the community by official, unofficial and voluntary organisations.
There is another advantage in a housing association; it can go in for a small-scale development, a gap between existing houses, a street corner site or a site that may be up for redevelopment. Churches provide a good example of this and I reinforce what the hon. Gentleman said on this score. Here the housing associations can play a valuable rôle, in rehabilitating, modernising and converting older property, particularly in areas which are not scheduled for redevelopment. The housing association can do a lot within a reasonable time schedule.
A great advantage, too, is the fact that people can provide voluntary skills. They can give of their time and energy in a part-time capacity as well as in a full-time, professional one. This means that the whole energy of the community can be directed to valuable projects of this kind. There is, as a result, a great gain for the population as a whole. Some of these Victorian houses on four or five floors are at present arranged so that cooking is done on the landing, without proper bath and lavatory facilities. These houses can be converted excellently by a housing association. The Notting Hill Housing Trust is one of many such organisations which can be called to mind in London and the surrounding area. The redevelopment of open virgin sites is another matter and it may happen that housing associations do not have the same rôle to play in these areas as they do in the sort of conditions I have outlined. Unfortunately, there is, perhaps, a fashion in thinking that housing associations can step in everywhere.
In my Borough of Ealing there has been an example which perhaps the Government are considering because it has particular relevance to the rôle of housing


associations raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Some years ago the London Borough of Ealing had about 30 acres of land available for its own building and it decided, as a matter of policy, to allocate the land to housing associations for the erection of 832 dwellings. One site, for 320 dwellings, was allocated to an association which had only just started up. I believe that in the Friendly Societies Register its capital now stands at £8. Another one in another area, which was allocated five acres of land for 150 dwellings, has a cash balance of £80 and was founded in September, 1967.
Unfortunately, both these associations have been unable to assure either the council or the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, as it then was—now the Department of the Environment—that they are in a fit position to develop these areas as they stand. The result is that instead of being fed into the housing programme of the London Borough of Ealing this land has remained fallow.
Even had it been built on, the London Borough of Ealing, although it provided the capital, would have had only a 75 per cent. nomination of the places. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that a housing association can have its 25 per cent., but this land was purchased by the authority specifically for its own use, and the authority's nominations would be cut by that figure. Further, the authority had decided to provide a subsidy of about £100 a year per dwelling for the dwellings in which its nominees would live.
Therefore this rôle, which I suggest is one which has not been outlined either by the hon. Gentleman or by myself, is a substitutionary rôle rather than an auxiliary one. I agree that in many areas the auxiliary rôle can be as important as, if not more important than, new construction.
The situation here is perhaps an unfortunate example of what can happen, because in 1969 completions in the London Borough of Ealing totalled 486. In 1970 they totalled 964. In 1971 the number will drop to 55. In 1972 the number will rise again to 803. From 1973 onwards it will be over 700. Therefore, rather like a lost cog in a wheel, because the land has been left and has not been

built on, there is a shortfall of 500–600 dwellings in the coming year. This will create great hardship in the area because, perhaps through over-idealism or some misjudgment, the authority of the day put a greater degree of faith in this type of development than at that time it merited.
Therefore, although I go a long way with what the hon. Gentleman has said, I think that he has put his finger right on the spot by saying that in looking at the future of this type of housing provision, which I certainly support, as I know do many of my hon. Friends, we must closely examine the administrative procedures. New and untried societies venturing into a field which is highly technical and which involves many skills may find themselves in difficulties. I have no doubt that the association with which the hon. Gentleman is connected is well experienced in its own field. I think that there are many others which are so experienced.
However, if we are not careful, we may find ourselves in the position where in trying to speed the production of good housing but in fact we delay it.
I hope that the Minister, in considering the decisions which have to be made inside the Department, will evaluate the most effective role for these associations, bearing in mind some of the experiences which have occurred throughout the country, of which I have no doubt that the Department is aware.
It has been a privilege to speak in this debate, because there are people on both sides of the House who have great concern for the housing of people, particularly in the older areas of towns and cities. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this topic.

9.28 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): The whole House will agree that we are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) for raising this crucial subject of the future of housing associations. We are also grateful to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) for his contribution, which I shall study with care at leisure.
By talking about the problems of London and of the inner core of London,


which he knows so well, my hon. Friend has dealt with one of the most crucial social issues of the day—the problems and quality of life of society in the inner core, its environment: all the vital matters in which housing plays such a very important part. My hon. Friend referred to his maiden speech in 1966, which I remember very well, on housing in London. I know also of the work to which he referred of the Paddington Churches Housing Trust. I agree with him about the importance of that work and of the work of housing associations in general.
I welcome this opportunity to reiterate the Government's intention to encourage the work of housing associations, indeed, to encourage the work of the whole voluntary housing movement. In the past it was sometimes argued that the introduction of the Welfare State would spell the end of voluntary effort and that people would have to look to the State in future as the universal provider of care and benefits from birth to death. It would have been calamitous if that prediction had been verified, but happily voluntary effort is flourishing today as strongly as ever, and I think more strongly than ever in the housing world. I am certain that the future will always provide room for a real partnership between the State and voluntary bodies, and voluntary effort will continue to add an important and essential element to the range of the social services provided in the community.
Housing associations, which are nonprofit-making bodies devoted to the provision or improvement of housing for people of modest means, have a very important contribution to make towards solving our housing problems, which can have a social aspect. I suppose that the main ways of tackling housing problems will continue to be the building of more houses for sale to owner-occupiers and the building of more houses for renting by local authorities. But I believe that the emphasis on the work of housing associations will substantially increase in the years ahead, and I hope that it does.
First, the provision of housing by housing associations will increase the choice available to people looking for a home. In our society, people's housing needs vary considerably, and it is right that

they should have as big a freedom of choice as we can arrange.
Second, and very important, housing associations provide an additional source of finance for housing. I think in this connection of the venerable bodies such as the Peabody Donation Fund, the Sutton Dwellings Trust and, if I dare mention it in the House, the Guinness Trust. I am not sure whether I should declare an interest any more. Given the magnitude of the housing problem, which I do not under-estimate, it is important that all these extra funds should be used to the utmost extent and effectiveness.
The hon. Member for Acton raised some cases in Ealing where he says that they are not being used to the utmost effectiveness. He would not expect me to comment on them without a chance to examine them. I shall certainly consider his point, but this is primarily a problem for the London Borough of Ealing, and I am not sure how much I am entitled to inquire into its affairs.

Mr. Spearing: The question I wished to raise, and emphasise now, is not only whether those bodies are administratively capable but whether that type of development is the correct and most beneficial rôle for housing associations as such. I and many of my hon. Friends doubt it

Mr. Channon: I should not like to comment on the particular problems of Ealing without notice. Whether housing associations are the right solution there must be a matter for those who know the problem of Ealing far better than I do. In general, I certainly think that the housing associations have a crucial rôle in conversion and improvement. I also believe that they have a very important rôle in building new houses. Perhaps I can develop that point a little later.
Housing associations have already shown that they do invaluable work in renovating and renewing older houses. This year the number of houses that housing associations have modernised and improved will be a record. It is now widely recognised that area improvement is desirable, not only because it raises the present level of living conditions in a neighbourhood, but also because it prevents the future needless expense of clearing properties that did not have to become slums. Some authorities


have divided their territory among several associations in order to get the maximum benefit from their labours and, of course, this has been a success in many cases.
My hon. Friend mentioned the question of block loans being given by local authorities to housing associations when they have proved their worth. I am sure he knows that the G.L.C. and a number of other local authorities are operating this system at present. I am sure that he is right in saying that this is useful where it can be done.
I believe that the housing association can often be more flexible or adventurous than a public authority, whose activities have to be governed to a much greater extent by set rules. It is answerable to its electorate and must try to keep a balance between different and conflicting claims. A housing association, on the other hand, may set out to deal with special cases if it wants to, and no one can hold it against it that it is not dealing with every case.
For example, one can have an association which sets out to provide housing for the elderly. A number of distinguished associations operate in this sector. This, indeed, is one of the greatest housing problems facing the nation. Again, one may have an association to provide houses for ex-convicts, for example. No one criticises it for not dealing with the young or those not in jail. Housing associations can specialise. It is rash to claim that everyone can be covered by our social services. It is difficult to visualise the stage at which no one would ever slip through the net. Housing associations very often meet special needs, such as those I have mentioned.

Mr. Scott: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend on a point which he has already passed, but it took me a little time to realise exactly what he had said. My hon. Friend said that the G.L.C. was already operating a block grant scheme. As I understand it, what it does is to grant a local authority approval for a total sum of money but that authority still has to go back to the G.L.C. for approvals within that sum for each individual house or each individual block of houses it intends to purchase. The G.L.C. has to approve at each stage, and that is the delay. My case is that one ought to have approval just to go ahead and spend the

money and that, after the fact, there could be an audit to check that the money has been spent sensibly.

Mr. Channon: I am advised that what my hon. Friend has said is in fact being done by the G.L.C. with block loans in the way he has outlined, and that they are being given to suitable housing associations. But in view of what he has just said, I will check up on the matter and write to him, because this is a very important point and one with which I am in considerable sympathy.
For all the reasons I have outlined, the Government intend to do all they can to assist housing associations. How best they can be assisted raises a great many questions which are not at all easy to resolve. One of the first actions of the Government on taking office was to decide to collect the evidence which was being collected at the time by the then Cohen Committee, which was studying the future of the voluntary housing movement. I have seen some of the work which has gone into this, and it is a massive document.
The Committee took evidence not only from housing associations themselves on how they thought their efforts could be increased, but also from local authorities in their experience with housing associations. We are studying the evidence that has come in and I hope that we shall soon be in a position to say something more constructive to the House than I have been able to say tonight.
At first sight, the voluntary housing movement presents a bewildering variety of types and a surprising number of associations. No one wishes to extinguish variety simply for the sake of tidiness, but some of the most experienced spirits in the movement have sounded a note of alarm at the sheer proliferation of associations which has taken place in recent years. Ought the ideal to be to have an association in every neighbourhood or every street? Or is it not much better to have a smaller number of bodies with growing assets on which they can rely and on which they can readily borrow for further growth?
The older housing trusts started off with funds bequeathed or collected. Nowadays, an association may begin with negligible assets, relying solely on the enthusiasm or the professional skills of


its members. I agree with what the hon. Member for Acton said about involving all sorts of people in the work of the housing associations.
In this case an association can be rather vulnerable. We all know that to be effective in improving old houses and building new ones an association needs to satisfy certain exacting conditions. First, it must have a properly trained staff. Housing management is no job for amateurs. An association that allows rent arrears to build up or property to fall into such disrepair as to disgust existing tenants and repel prospective ones will soon get into the state when the only remedy, if the property is not to be sold up, is for some more competent body to take it over. Nor is it good for prospective tenants—and this does not happen so much in London—to come to a site to see what is going on and to be referred elsewhere to gain entry. Associations must be professional about these things.
An association should have a detailed knowledge of the area in which it works. It is then possible to obtain land more easily and to take advantage of local variations in values. I read recently a successful business man explaining his own success. In one London street houses on one side sold for £20,000 while on the other side they sold for £5,750 and almost three-quarters of home buyers moved only a couple of miles. There is a need to be professional because it is no good buying an apparent bargain if the site turns out to be waterlogged or if vast expense is needed to make it fit for housing.
Just because housing associations are non-profit-making or virtually so, this should not imply that they do not need to be as business-like as anyone who makes a living from the job. It is terribly sad when, in a small minority of cases, an association puts up buildings without having considered the likely demand for houses or flats of a certain kind or the number of people likely to want them at the rents which would have to be charged to repay the money borrowed and to keep the property in repair. Proper market research is essential here as elsewhere.
In addition, substantial working capital is needed. Without it an association may well miss an opportunity of acquiring

some site or existing properties for conversion. As has been emphasised by those who know a good deal about housing associations, if there are difficulties in construction which cannot always be foreseen or prevented, there can occasionally be cases where associations may have to leave the building unfinished, to be taken over by some financially stronger body.
The House would agree that the encouragement of the work of housing associations is not only a matter of stimulating the setting up of more associations. We intend to take the necessary action to put the housing association movement into the right framework, with correct financial disciplines and the appropriate means of financing their activities. We must have associations that are manifestly competent and equipped with the necessary resources to inspire confidence in their credit-worthiness.
At the same time many distinguished people in the movement point out that the history of earlier non-profit-making enterprises underlines the importance of controlling the ultimate destiny of the equity in property provided from housing associations with the aid of public funds or guarantees. It has happened that rented housing provided for people of modest means has appreciated in value, passed out of control and has been disposed of in the open market. It is not right that public money should be loaned to an association for the provision of rented accommodation that would not be provided without such free lending and then, after a time, the body should be able to repay the loan and exploit the assets for the benefit of those who at the time comprise the association. That is not to mention the possibility that the exploitation will affect the situation for some time before it is realised.
These are the dangers that can arise and we must be sure when encouraging the movement that we guard against them. In encouraging the growth of associations we must ensure that there is no way of exploiting public funds for private purposes. What we will do in examining the situation is to try to provide a more business-like framework in which associations can operate. I have under consideration a draft model scheme provided by very distinguished people in the movement which goes into great


detail. I hope that it will not be too long before I can give some more information about this. Housing associations have a spendid opportunity to make a great contribution to the fulfilment of some of the major aims of our housing policy. We are actively considering ways of helping them further, and statements will be made as soon as possible.
The House will know of our major aims in housing policy—an assault on the twin problems of unfit housing and over-crowding, better housing for people in special need, such as the elderly and the disabled, the modernising or redeveloping of older housing to put new vitality into our city areas, the provision of more rented accommodation to provide a greater choice for people who for some reason cannot be or do not wish to be owner-occupiers, including the young and mobile, at one end, and the elderly who find keeping up a house too much for them at the other, and perhaps most important of all the encouragement of home ownership which is the best bargain that anyone in this country can possibly have.
Housing associations can help in achieving many of these aims. But with their present multitude of small bodies the housing association world bears a great resemblance to the world of building societies 50 years ago. Today the building society movement in this country is the strongest in the world and we are exceedingly lucky to have it. We are studying how to achieve our goal of jumping 50 years in a short period and enabling the housing association movement to take an equally important place in our society. To achieve this, I welcome constructive suggestions from any quarter.
I shall study with great care the remarks made tonight when considering the studies being prepared in my Department from which we hope to announce conclusions before too long. If any other hon. Members have constructive suggestions to make about the future of the voluntary housing movement, I shall be only too glad to consider them. We are now at the formative stage when we are beginning to consider our policy in this crucial field. Housing associations and housing societies have a crucial rôle to play. They are the third arm of the

housing movement. Anyone who is concerned, as those who have spoken tonight are, about the appalling conditions which exist in London will know what an important rôle housing associations and housing societies can play as a palliative in helping to solve some of the problems raised tonight. The Government are determined to do everything in their power to encourage the growth of the voluntary housing movement.
I very much welcome the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South in raising this matter tonight.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN SPACE RESEARCH ORGANISATION

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has informed a Minister that he wishes to raise a second subject on the Adjournment and that a Minister is present.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Yes, Mr. Speaker. At ten minutes to five, realising that the other business of the House might collapse, I informed the Ministry that I wished to raise this subject.
I feel a little contrite, because having written about there being an overdose of democracy which acted against the discussion of superficially fairly esoteric subjects like the future of the European Space Research Organisation, I now find that, not only has the Minister of Aviation Supply kindly come to the House for this debate, at some inconvenience to himself, I gather, but we also have with us a senior and important member of the Cabinet who is responsible, the right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). For the record, it should be said that the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Lady have taken the trouble to come here, because that will be much appreciated by many members of the staff of E.S.R.O. I sincerely, and not simply as a matter of form, thank them for coming—also the civil servants, who may have been inconvenienced.
Yet, I am not contrite in another sense in raising this subject because the future of British participation in the European Space Research Organisation is a matter


of very considerable concern to those who are interested, not only in esoteric technical subjects but in Britain joining the Common Market. As a pro-Marketeer, may I say that, whatever is thought about E.S.R.O. on this side of the Channel, there is very little doubt that on the other side of the Channel it is regarded as something of a flag flier and that it matters to European politicians.
If I had written that the British delegation of the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, consisting of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn), who I hope will have an opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) had had difficulty in getting heard at the right level, it was perhaps in contrast to what happens in France where delegates like General Billotte have the ear not only of M. Chaban-Delmas but of M. Pompidou on this subject. In Germany there is no doubt that it is dealt with at the level of Willy Brandt and Herr Wehner and in Belgium at the highest level of M. Lefevre and the Cabinet.
Without being impertinent in any way, I wish that the right hon. Gentleman who occupies the post of Minister of Aviation Supply were a member of the Cabinet so that he could take part in those Tuesday and Thursday financial wrestling matches which are part of the British governmental system. I doubt whether the Minister of Aviation Supply ought to be seen to be negotiating at this level in Europe without being a member of the Cabinet. Not only does this matter in our own Whitehall, it also matters in Europe.
I wish that there were a system of being able to place in HANSARD fairly long extracts. I have already sent the speech of Dr. Kleen, the Director of E.S.T.E.C. and Nordwijk, to the Minister. Much of what I shall say comes from the discussions of Professor Bondi, Dr. Montalenti, in Damstadt, and Pierre Blassel in Nordwijk.
Dr. Kleen says:
Parallel with our development of spacecraft technology our hopes have also developed that our future programme will be enlarged to bring in application satellites—satellite systems for commercial purposes such as telecommunications and air traffic control, and perhaps later meteorology.

One reason why I raise this subject is that what E.S.R.O. is doing is of extreme importance. If we are to have a proper telephone system in Europe, it is vital that E.S.R.O's satellite work should be allowed to proceed. I am not pretending that it is of great importance to short-distance calls between London and Paris, but it is of considerable importance if Glasgow has to call Milan or Falkirk has to call Turin. As industrially we become more and more integrated with Europe, this is a matter of considerable consequence. As a Scot rather more distant from Europe than from London, it is of particular consequence to me and also to my constituents and to those who work in industry in Scotland and the North. Applications work is not esoteric.
When Dr. Kleen talks of air traffic control, it is, of course, supra-ocean air traffic control, and I think that it will be agreed that the North Atlantic route is also presenting considerable problems with subsonic Boeing 707's and the fact that there has to be an air space for safety of longitudinally 300 miles and latitudinally 200 miles. It is extremely expensive to do the rerouting for the extra distances that are required for safety. It will become impossible when we bring in Concorde at supersonic speeds. E.S.R.O's work is vital to the use of Concorde on the North Atlantic route. There are, therefore, practical applications and, as a pro-Concorde man, I am concerned about this.
Dr. Kleen continues:
By the very nature of applications satellite systems, they have to be international ventures. No European country is big enough to make effective use of such satellite systems for its own national purposes. International cooperation for the scientific exploration and the economic exploitation of space is, or ought to be, in addition a firm foundation for the improvement of mutual understanding between nations of different outlooks and different tongues. Here in ESTEC we have demonstrated beyond doubt the practicability of full effective international collaboration among staff. We have here staff members from fourteen countries speaking nine different mother tongues. I can assure you our work carries on without any evidence whatsoever of national bias or national difference—in fact as if different nationalities did not exist.
I would say in parenthesis to the Ministers on the Front Bench that E.S.R.O. is very different from E.L.D.O., not just for party political reasons, in


that a Labour Government withdrew from E.L.D.O. Perhaps it was right to draw out of E.L.D.O., which had no proper management techniques and did not own as much as a spanner. However, E.S.R.O. is an entirely different organisation and is worth preserving.
Dr. Kleen goes on—and I have cleared this with the doctor, who will shortly be leaving, perhaps to go back to his former firm of Siemen of Munich:
Your visit here happens to be at a time when we staff members of E.S.R.O. have just seen, with deep disappointment, that such collaboration does not yet exist at the Ministerial levels of our countries—and I refer to your delegates to the European Space Conference. The fourth European Space Conference was held at Brussels earlier this month. I suppose that its results are well known to you. We now seem to have arrived in the position that the whole concept of a co-operative European space effort is in danger. We are no longer confident that this cooperative venture will have any reasonable future. I do not intend to speak in detail about the damage to the European space effort which could result from such a failure—the damage to West European science and the damage to the European economy if Europe is prevented from developing applications satellites—especially in the telecommunications field. Such a failure would inevitably enlarge the already existing gap between the technological and managerial capabilities of the United States on the one hand and of West Europe on the other.
I personally think that it is the managerial capacity that may be the most valuable part of all of E.S.R.O.'s work as, indeed, N.A.S.A. has shown in the United States. Dr. Kleen goes on:
This morning I mentioned the capital investment in E.S.R.O. by our member States amounting to many millions of dollars. All this would be thrown into the dustbin if the co-operative European space effort is abandoned. But there is another aspect, and an even more important aspect, which I would like to bring to your attention. We have here in E.S.T.E.C. a team of several hundred scientists, technologists, engineers and managers who have now accumulated considerable experience in space technology and the management of space projects. We have learned a lot, sometimes even by errors. I believe that it will be generally acknowledged that within the financial constraints of oar budget, E.S.R.O. has achieved fair success. That success is because of the quality, the intellectual capacity, the experience and the teamwork of our staff. However, the present uncertainty which has resulted from the Brussels conference creates its gravest danger because of its effect on our staff. We staff members"—
and this is a senior German talking—
should not be considered as mercenaries who are used and paid as long as they are needed

and who are fired when the situation changes because of political reasons. There is plenty of demand in Europe for good engineers, good scientists and good managers—both in national space programmes and in other fields. It may be that our present confused situation will in time be clarified. But time is important.
The reason I bring forward this matter on a second adjournment debate is that there may be no other opportunity of raising this issue before the key Brussels meeting on 22nd December when I think a senior Minister will be going back to negotiate on behalf of the British Government. Dr. Kleen goes on:
Already now some of our staff members are considering whether they should look for other jobs, and this number will grow…

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Monro.]

Mr. Dalyell: He continues:
This number will grow with every day that the uncertainty continues.
It is perhaps the uncertainty that bothers me more than anything on their behalf.
All this is very understandable from the human standpoint. And it should be remembered too that when staff members do start to leave us, it will be the better ones who go first, because these are the ones who will very easily and quickly find other posts. I may add that immediately after the Brussels Conference—and this is symptomatic of the present situation—the rate of refusals of our offers of new appointments suddenly increased by an order of magnitude. Once a number of highly specialised staff members have left us, it would be impossible to replace that lost capacity within a reasonable time. We are now approaching a point when an honest boss, replying to questions from his staff concerning their future, can no longer reasonably advise them to stay and to wait until the politicians have made up their minds.
Professor Bondi, shortly to leave for a senior post at the Ministry of Defence, said at the Press conference—thus not in private conversation but publicly—as the hon. Member for Hallam may remember:
I should not like to be in the shoes of a director who has to build up a new staff, if E.S.R.O. fails for political reasons.
That perhaps is the most important point I would make. The purpose of the Adjournment debate is not to try to score debating points, but to give the British Government an opportunity to put something of their point of view, because like


everything in this field there are two sides to every question. I do not want to enter into personalities or indeed to make embarrassing comments on other Ministers. But one has to ask whether M. Lefevre was a bit quick in some of his actions at the last Brussels Conference. I hope that this situation can be healed. Certainly it was the point of view of people not even of our nationality that M. Lefevre had been "trop vite" in what he did.
I should also like to raise the issue generally of the level of attention that it is getting. Certainly there were some British staff members there who were under the impression that it was being dealt with as part of a review of public expenditure carried out by an Under-Secretary, a rather junior Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry.

The Minister of Aviation Supply (Mr. Frederick Corfield): I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got that idea from, but I can tell him that it has nothing whatever to do with my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).

Mr. Dalyell: I am glad that has been made clear, because it was not clear to some people at E.S.R.O. with whom I was talking about this. I hope it is now cleared up.
Finally, we have to say that there is indeed a possibility, in the view of the French, that France, Germany and Belgium may decide, in what the French call their exasperation, to go it alone. There are pressures from the French national organisation at Toulouse that in many ways they would like, for reasons of their own, to go it alone. If they did, then we should be left out not only of air traffic control but of the European satellite system and the new dimensions of telephonic communication.
Because there are other hon. Members who ought to have their say—the hon. Member for Hallam in particular—and because the Minister ought to have his time to wind up the debate. I should like to thank the House for giving me a hearing and once again to say that I deeply appreciate that, whatever differences of opinion there may be between us, not only has the Minister of Aviation Supply turned up for the debate but

also his right hon. Secretary of State for Education and Science. This will be appreciated by those who read the debate in Europe.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: I must first thank the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell for warning me about three-quarters of an hour ago that he was raising this subject on the Adjournment and inviting me to contribute.
The problems that the hon. Gentle-has raised are immense, and he should realise that decisions relating to many of them go well beyond the powers of a Minister in this country and involve the taking of decisions by Ministers of the ten countries which support E.S.R.O. and of those other countries who support the E.L.D.O. programme.
One point should be made clear. As the hon. Gentleman said, there was a parliamentary and scientific visit following a Parliamentary and scientific meeting with Professor Bondi, and various Members of this House were represented on that visit and met Members of Parliament from other countries.
I have tabled a number of Questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science on joint projects both as regards CERN and E.S.R.O., and it should be said that the approach which my right hon. Friend has announced already so accords with the nature of my Question on CERN that I very much hope that we shall be able to show a co-operative approach on a European space research programme. I was contemplating tabling some Questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation Supply following the note which I sent him after our visit.
We must accept that E.S.R.O., like any other organisation supported by a number of independent Governments, is subject to the political whims of those independent Governments, Her Majesty's Government being one of them. The hon. Gentleman will readily admit that delegates from other countries questioned the value of the work already being carried out by E.S.R.O. I remember talking to a Swedish delegate and asking whether the money would not be better spent on social security and health schemes rather


than on the pursuit of scientific knowledge. I noted a statement in the Press back in October announcing that Denmark is to leave the European Space Research Organisation at the end of next year. The reason is that Denmark has balance of payments problems and has to ascertain its own priorities.
Then there is the argument about whether we should take part in E.L.D.O. The decision to withdraw was taken by the previous Government and not by this Government. I would remind my right hon. Friends that I have been among those hon. Members on this side of the House who have advocated a British launcher programme or British participation in an international launcher programme.

Mr Dalyell: There is all the difference in the world between E.L.D.O. and E.S.R.O. from a management point of view. One is a very successful organisation, whereas the other was thought not to be.

Mr. Osborn: Certainly, but that brings one to consider the extent to which there should be national programmes and international programmes.
The hon. Gentleman referred to three very interesting articles in the issues of Aviation Week and Space Technology dated 9th and 16th November and the more recent one of 7th December. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation Supply may not be aware of it, but the issue of 9th November was circulated to all Members of Parliament who had been to Germany. It stresses one or two points:
The British said they would not invest in the N.A.S.A. programme because it is 'too loosely defined'… Britain's move caught its European partners by surprise and caused complete disruption of the session. The meetings, which were to have lasted three days, were adjourned at the end of the first day.
Then it refers to M. Theo Lefevre, the Belgian Science Minister and the Chairman, and says that perhaps he was too quick. Then there is a reference to the possibility of France, Germany and Belgium deciding to go it alone.
Finally, the Aviation Week and Space Technology of 7th December states:
The E.S.R.O. council meeting came less than a month after the abortive November 4th European Space Conference meeting in

Brussels. The overall European space picture was left very confused following the breakdown of the E.S.C. negotiations.
What is also interesting is that Professor Bondi has now decided to stay on until September, 1971, and not take an appointment in this country quite as early as was anticipated.
The hon. Member for West Lothian read from his article published in the New Scientist—

Mr. Dalyell: No.

Mr. Osborn: The hon. Gentleman inferred that what he said accorded with what was published in the article. The hon. Gentleman has probably over-emphasised the element of disagreement.
We had a separate meeting with General Billotte from France and with others. He hoped that it would be possible to arrange a meeting of Members of Parliament in this country to discuss our participation in E.S.R.O. and in other spheres.
At the end of his article in the New Scientist the hon. Gentleman said:
From now on it is intended that there should be regular meetings by Members of Parliament interested in E.S.R.O. from all the member countries.
I welcome this. I think that Members of Parliament should know how their money is being spent. But I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has taken a rather dramatic interpretation of the position as explained by the Minister. In fact, the Minister—no doubt he will describe the position that he found on his first visit to Brussels—must decide how much we spend on international programmes and on our own.
The hon. Member for West Lothian referred to the fact that Belgium, Germany and France are going on with their own launcher programme. That is fair enough. When dealing with a space research programme the most important issue, as I see it, is to have satellites adequately launched. There is an excellent arrangement whereby, for the time being, these satellites are launched from Cape Canaveral but are controlled from Darmstadt and the various stations set up in the European Space Organisation.
I welcome this opportunity of asking my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend to outline what has gone on in Brussels and elsewhere. We want to be quite


certain that our money on space programmes, on high energy physics, or on other programmes is spent to the best advantage. If, for the time being, it is logical to use American space launchers—certainly E.L.D.O., which I have not seen, has its limitations for the moment—this is fair enough. Ultimately we have to decide the extent to which we share in a post-Apollo programme. The decision so far is somewhat negative. The decisions facing any Government in this country as to how far to participate and deal with our friends in Europe and work out a satisfactory compromise are difficult.
But if there are these difficulties on any joint international venture, they are by no means confined to E.S.R.O. They are to be found in other ventures. Euratom is yet another example where joint finance and agreement on how to spend it is necessary.
I urgently suggest to our Belgian, German and French friends that it is more costly to embark on a national programme financed by one Exchequer than to share with agreement, give and take, in an international programme.
I hope that my hon. Friend will give us some positive views at this stage. I readily concede that my hon. Friend cannot give us a firm answer tonight, because it depends on negotiations with our friends.

10.15 p.m.

The Minister of Aviation Supply (Mr. Frederick Corfield): I should like to make it clear to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that it has not at any time been in our minds to withdraw from E.S.R.O. There is no lack of appreciation of the work of E.S.R.O. or its staff, and we accept, as we are bound to do, that where there are uncertainties in any organisation about the work load there will be uncertainties and frustrations amongst the staff.
I remind the hon. Gentleman, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) has done, that where one depends on collaboration, it takes more than one country to collaborate, and I think that it would be useful if I were to try very quickly to remind, or perhaps to inform, the hon. Gentleman of the facts, which are very

different from what appeared in his article in the New Scientist.
I take the House back to the July Ministerial Space Conference, when a budget of 12½ million dollars was agreed by all the countries present to finance the application satellite studies, covering the communications satellite project, the air traffic control satellite project, which I think the hon. Gentleman will know is subject to some degree of agreement between the Americans and Europe about the most appropriate frequency, and a possible meteorological satellite. Our share of that sum which was voted and agreed was about £1·1 million, and of course, it was voted on the assumption that the other participating countries would pay their share.
We made it abundantly clear at that stage that we did not believe that we were justified in the very expensive programme of launchers in which other countries were interested. In view of the generous way in which the United States have hitherto made launchers available for our scientific satellites, we have no reason to believe that that will not continue, and we felt, and still feel, that to expend Europe's resources on duplicating technologies which the United States had developed was not the right priority.
Immediately following that Ministerial meeting in July the E.S.R.O. Council met and approved for the ensuing few months its budget of one million dollars out of the 12½ million dollars voted for the current year, leaving a balance of 11½ million dollars to be allocated later. It was at that stage that the French made it clear that they were not prepared to vote their share of that 12½ million dollars, on the grounds—which to be fair to them they had made clear to us—that they wished to have what they called a complete, coherent and balanced common space programme, the implication being that any other programme was somehow or other incoherent, incomplete or unbalanced, a distinction which I have never been able fully to understand, but it may be a difference of language.
Earlier this month the E.S.R.O. Council also approved the science budget of no less than 64 million dollars, our share of which works out at 23·13 per cent., or about five million, which falls upon my right hon. Friend's budget.
The next meeting, as the hon. Gentleman has made clear, is on 22nd December. It is a meeting of the Council at official level, and is not a Ministerial meeting. The question of the application satellite will have to be considered in the light of what has gone on before, and we must be guided by the proposals which may be put forward by E.S.R.O. itself as to what can be done with the balance of the money remaining, having taken account of the fact that the French are not now willing to contribute, and that perhaps other countries will follow their lead. Therefore, until we know that, it is impossible to be clear as to the line that can or should be taken.
To refer to the hon. Gentleman's article in the New Scientist, I am not suggesting that he did not do his best to reflect what he believed to be the reactions of the people to whom he talked.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: I hope that I have made it clear that others did not gain the same impression as the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), and that they thought the reactions were different.

Mr. Corfield: I am grateful. I was going to say that, whatever those reactions may have been, or the hon. Member's impression thereof, I am afraid that they are a long way from an accurate record of the facts. But I would emphasise—the hon. Gentleman mentioned Ministerial availability—that I would have been only too delighted to inform him of the facts had he approached me or wished to talk to me.

Mr. Dalyell: I said that the speech of Dr. Kleen was a most coherent record of an attitude. I think that I behaved properly over this.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. We must have proper parliamentary decorum.

Mr. Corfield: I should have been very happy, had I been asked, to enlighten the hon. Gentleman about the facts, although I had done my best in answering the Written Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) on 11th November, to set those facts out as far as possible without adding to any of the exasperation or anger to which the

hon. Gentleman refers. I do not believe that to dwell on emotion of that sort is in any way helpful. Nor do I believe that it is either accurate or helpful to describe what happened at Brussels as "Brussels malignancy". That expression does not help.
If the hon. Gentleman had checked the facts, he would have been quite clear at any rate that any situation which might be described in the words that he used was certainly not of our making. I hope that he will refer, if he is in doubt, to the latest article in Aviation Week and Space Technology, which is a fairly accurate account of what has happened in the most recent meeting. I hope that he will also refer to the answer I mentioned to my hon. Friend.
But I should add, although I am very anxious not to add to any of the emotions to which the hon. Gentleman has referred that what happened was that M. Lefèvre, at least a week or a little more before the conference, told me that the French, Germans and Belgians were insisting on a further contribution, totalling 35 million dollars, which at that time was described as being for the purposes of post-Apollo studies, and that it was to be understood that, if those studies were successful, the countries concerned must undertake now to go ahead with the development of whatever portions of the post-Apollo programme were allotted to Europe. This could have involved a sum for this country of up to £100 million, on estimates which allowed practically nothing for escalation and nothing at all for either production or operation.
So we were faced with a proposal which left us entirely in the dark—I am not entirely unused to the art of cross-examination, but I remained in the dark—as to who would decide whether these studies were successful, what criterion would be applied, and, if they were so-called successful, in the meantime to what the 35 million dollars were to be applied.
It was not until the conference, and well on in the conference—until a good deal of hard cross-examination—that it appeared that by far the greater part of the 35 million dollars was, in fact, to be devoted to the launcher programme which we had made perfectly clear in July we were not prepared to enter. Naturally,


no responsible Government could commit this country to an entirely open-ended commitment on the basis of studies about which it was not even clear how and by whom it would be decided whether they were successful.
If the other parties to this operation were surprised, then I am bound to say that M. Lefevre had no reason to believe that we could possibly be attracted by a proposition of this sort. Whether or not he was trop vite, he had a week in which to think about it.
The result, I believe, was a fairly unsatisfactory conference. However, I do not believe that it could conceivably have been the right way to achieve collaboration by, as the hon. Gentleman said in his article, having a pistol of this sort at one's head.
Certainly this is not the way in which we believe we could enhance and advance the collaborative proposals and projects which I am every bit as anxious as he is should be executed; and I think that I can probably claim to be even older in the European concept and movement than he is.
It does not help in any way at all if any of us add fuel to the flames. If the hon. Gentleman will study the Belgian newspapers, he will see marked change in the articles written the day after the conference—following a Press conference called by M. Lefevre at about 7 o'clock, when there had been agreement that there

would be no Press conference until 11 o'clock—and the Press comment which appeared two or three days later, when the true facts had begun to be understood in Brussels. The hon. Gentleman will find it an interesting and, in some respects, reassuring exercise to read those newspapers.
I want it clearly on the record that we have throughout been willing and anxious to support the satellite programme to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and we remain in that position. Of our share of the money voted in July, I think that practically none has yet been allocated or spent. It seems to me right that we should accept the reports of these studies which were scheduled to appear from June onwards next year. We should expect some results from that contribution without being forced, so to speak, to decide whether we go on with an open-ended commitment entirely undefined in terms of technology in order, so to speak, to pay our ticket into Europe. That would in no way help the European cause. If we are to appear to the British public—who are not perhaps unanimous in the belief that we should go into Europe—to be paying that sort of price, then I do not believe that it would do the cause which the hon. Gentleman has at heart any good at all.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.